CN112633633A - Method and device for identifying and evaluating gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger - Google Patents
Method and device for identifying and evaluating gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN112633633A CN112633633A CN202011354522.3A CN202011354522A CN112633633A CN 112633633 A CN112633633 A CN 112633633A CN 202011354522 A CN202011354522 A CN 202011354522A CN 112633633 A CN112633633 A CN 112633633A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- bridge
- value
- leakage
- score
- fire
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 70
- 230000008878 coupling Effects 0.000 title claims abstract description 38
- 238000010168 coupling process Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 38
- 238000005859 coupling reaction Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 38
- 238000004880 explosion Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 80
- 230000006378 damage Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 67
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 50
- 239000007789 gas Substances 0.000 claims description 141
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 claims description 39
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 claims description 31
- 230000004907 flux Effects 0.000 claims description 28
- 230000005855 radiation Effects 0.000 claims description 27
- 238000010276 construction Methods 0.000 claims description 26
- 238000009933 burial Methods 0.000 claims description 22
- 238000012937 correction Methods 0.000 claims description 22
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 17
- 230000007797 corrosion Effects 0.000 claims description 15
- 238000005260 corrosion Methods 0.000 claims description 15
- 230000007547 defect Effects 0.000 claims description 15
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 claims description 13
- 239000002737 fuel gas Substances 0.000 claims description 7
- 238000002347 injection Methods 0.000 claims description 7
- 239000007924 injection Substances 0.000 claims description 7
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 claims description 6
- 230000002776 aggregation Effects 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000004220 aggregation Methods 0.000 claims description 5
- 239000011248 coating agent Substances 0.000 claims description 5
- 238000000576 coating method Methods 0.000 claims description 5
- 229910000831 Steel Inorganic materials 0.000 description 9
- 239000010959 steel Substances 0.000 description 9
- 238000012502 risk assessment Methods 0.000 description 6
- 239000000243 solution Substances 0.000 description 5
- 239000004567 concrete Substances 0.000 description 4
- 239000011513 prestressed concrete Substances 0.000 description 4
- 208000027418 Wounds and injury Diseases 0.000 description 3
- 208000014674 injury Diseases 0.000 description 3
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000011150 reinforced concrete Substances 0.000 description 2
- 206010000369 Accident Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 238000003763 carbonization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004140 cleaning Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002131 composite material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000009792 diffusion process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000002474 experimental method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002360 explosive Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002093 peripheral effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011084 recovery Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003014 reinforcing effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008439 repair process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000006467 substitution reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0635—Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/06—Energy or water supply
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/08—Construction
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/10—Services
- G06Q50/26—Government or public services
- G06Q50/265—Personal security, identity or safety
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Water Supply & Treatment (AREA)
- Public Health (AREA)
- Computer Security & Cryptography (AREA)
- Examining Or Testing Airtightness (AREA)
Abstract
The invention discloses a method and a device for identifying and evaluating coupling hidden dangers of a gas pipeline and a bridge, wherein the method comprises the following steps: acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score; acquiring a first evaluation parameter of a bridge fire caused by gas leakage; acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a score value of bridge explosion vulnerability and a result value of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion; acquiring an emergency rescue factor; calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, a first evaluation parameter of bridge fire caused by gas leakage, a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and an emergency rescue factor; the invention has the advantages that: provided are a method and a device for identifying coupling hidden dangers of a gas pipeline and a bridge and evaluating corresponding risks.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of gas safety supervision, in particular to a method and a device for identifying and evaluating coupling hidden dangers of a gas pipeline and a bridge.
Background
With the increasing progress of urbanization, cities face more and more public safety risks, and great threats are brought to the normal development of the urban society and economy. Due to interdependency and mutual restriction relationship in and among social systems, a linkage effect is often generated, which shows that the occurrence of a disaster together can cause the successive occurrence of a series of secondary disasters. When the two risks are converged, the uncertain state of the two risks is amplified. The impact also spreads from one geographical space to another, broader geographical space.
In recent municipal engineering construction, the connection between lifeline engineering and urban road and bridge construction is tighter, and the distance is closer. Once the gas pipeline leaks, the surrounding facilities are easily damaged by the jet fire, the underground space explosion and the like caused by the gas pipeline, and a coupling risk is formed. The bridge damage event caused by the leakage and explosion of the gas pipeline occurs, the gas pipeline is damaged by the removal of the bridge damage event in 2018, 3 months in the world, Jiangxi Jingdezhen, the leakage gas diffuses to the drainage pipeline and is accumulated and exploded, so that one person dies, and the peripheral bridge is also seriously damaged. In 9 months in 2018, at the intersection of the great road of Hefeizhou and the water Yangjiang river, the third party works to cause the leakage of a gas pipeline to cause a fire, thereby damaging a nearby overpass. Therefore, the method is particularly important for identifying the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge and evaluating the corresponding risk.
Chinese patent application No. CN202010303580.7 discloses a method and device for matching gas risk assessment and safety supervision resources, wherein the method comprises: collecting gas risk assessment data; cleaning the collected gas risk assessment to obtain cleaned data; determining a risk evaluation area, and meshing the risk evaluation area according to the size of a preset mesh; obtaining scores of the cleaned data in the grids; determining index weight based on an analytic hierarchy process, judging whether consistency check is passed, and if the consistency check is passed, carrying out grid risk calculation; and acquiring the safety supervision resources, and matching the safety supervision resources to obtain the safety supervision resources in each grid. The patent application mainly relates to gas risk assessment, and does not relate to identification of coupling hidden dangers of gas pipelines and bridges, and does not relate to assessment of corresponding risks.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to solve the technical problem that methods and devices for identifying the coupling hidden danger of a gas pipeline and a bridge and evaluating the corresponding risk are lacked in the prior art.
The invention solves the technical problems through the following technical means: a method for identifying and evaluating a gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger, the method comprising:
the method comprises the following steps: acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score, wherein the gas pipeline leakage possibility score comprises a pipeline large leakage possibility score and a pipeline tiny leakage possibility score;
step two: acquiring first evaluation parameters of bridge fire caused by gas leakage, wherein the first evaluation parameters comprise a fire damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge fire vulnerability score value and a bridge influence consequence value of gas pipeline leakage fire to the bridge;
step three: acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a score value of bridge explosion vulnerability and a result value of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion;
step four: acquiring an emergency rescue factor;
step five: and calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, a first evaluation parameter of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and an emergency rescue factor.
The invention establishes a method for identifying the hidden coupling danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge and evaluating the risk, and evaluates the coupling risk of the gas pipeline and the bridge in three aspects of the possibility of leakage of the gas pipeline, the vulnerability of the bridge caused by fire/explosion due to gas leakage and the consequences caused by the fire/explosion.
Further, the process of obtaining the score of the possibility of large amount of leakage of the pipeline in the first step is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a leakage frequency based on pipeline information, wherein PGIndicating the leakage frequency, P, based on pipeline informationdiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of a pipe section of diameter difiIndicating a leakage frequency, P, of fi, which is the pipe segment covering depthhiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of the pipe section wall thickness hidmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, of pipe sections of different diametersfmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, at different coating depths of the pipe sectionhmaxIndicating the maximum leakage frequency, mu, at different pipe wall thicknesses of the pipe section1Indicating a correction factor, mu, for the type of material of the pipe2Indicates the construction activity degree and mu2=μ21*w1+μ22*w2,μ21Represents the distance, w, of the construction site from the gas pipeline to be evaluated1Represents the first weight and has a value of 0.6, mu22Indicating construction controllability correction factor, w2Represents a second weight and has a value of 0.4;
by the formulaObtaining a third party breach leak frequency final score based on pipeline information, wherein Q11Represents the third party corruption leakage frequency final score, min (P)G) Represents the minimum value of the whole-market gas pipe section, max (P)G) The maximum value of the term of the fuel gas pipe section of the whole city is shown;
by the formula Q1=Q11α1+Q12α2Obtaining a score of the likelihood of a large leak in the pipe, wherein Q1Represents a pipeline high leak probability score, Q12Representing the final score value, alpha, of the probability of a leak due to a geological disaster1The weight which represents the large amount of leakage caused by the third-party construction is 0.8; alpha is alpha2The weight of the large leakage caused by geological disaster is 0.2.
Further, the process of obtaining the score of the probability of the small leakage of the pipeline in the first step is as follows:
by the formula Q2=Q21α3+Q22α4Obtaining a score of the possibility of a micro-leak in the pipe, wherein Q2Indicates a score of a possible minute leakage of the pipe, Q21Indicates the corrosion score, α3Represents a weight of a small leakage caused by corrosion and has a value of 0.5, Q22Indicates the material defect score, alpha4Indicating that the material defect caused a minor leakage weight and has a value of 0.5.
Further, the acquiring process of the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient in the second step is as follows:
calculating the thermal radiation flux of the bridge caused by gas pipeline leakage by adopting a jet fire model, and taking 12.5KW/m2As the threshold value of the thermal radiation flux of the bridge, when the thermal radiation flux of the bridge obtained by calculation exceeds the threshold valueThe judgment coefficient lambda of the possibility of fire damage is obtained according to the threshold value of the thermal radiation flux of the bridge1Is 1, otherwise is 0.1, and when the possibility of fire damage is judged, the coefficient lambda is1When the value is 1, the hidden danger that the bridge is damaged due to gas pipeline leakage exists, wherein the injection fire model is an API521 model or a THORNTON model.
Further, the second step includes a process of acquiring the score value of the fire vulnerability of the bridge:
by the formula V1=V11ψ11+V12ψ12+V13ψ13+V14ψ14Obtaining a fire vulnerability score value of the bridge, wherein V1Represents the value of the vulnerability of the bridge to fire, V11Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the material type11Represents a third weight and takes 0.3, V12Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the structural member12Represents a fourth weight and takes 0.2, V13Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, due to age13Represents a fifth weight and takes 0.2, V14Indicates the vulnerability score, psi, resulting from the current rating14Represents the sixth weight and takes 0.3.
Further, in the second step, the obtaining process of the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge is as follows: by the formula C1=C11φ1+C12φ2Obtaining the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, wherein C1Value representing the consequences of a gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, C11Indicating a value of life and property loss, phi1Representing the weight of the loss of life and property, C12Represents a traffic demand impact value and C12=C31×ε31+C32×ε32+C33×ε33,C31Representing the influence of passenger-vehicle flow, C32Score value, C, corresponding to distance to alternate route33Representing the corresponding score value, epsilon, of the bridge service functioniIs a weight factor of the i-th index and epsilon31,ε32,ε33Respectively 0.2, 0.4, phi2Indicating traffic demandThe impact value is weighted.
Further, the process of obtaining the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient in the third step is as follows:
when the shortest distance between the gas pipeline and the water drainage pipeline is smaller than Rmax, a first judgment coefficient lambda 21 is equal to 1, otherwise, the distance is 0.1, the water drainage pipeline has a safe burial depth, if the actual burial depth of the water drainage pipeline is larger than the safe burial depth, overpressure damage cannot be caused to a ground disaster bearing body, a second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 0.1, otherwise, overpressure damage can be caused to the ground disaster bearing body, the second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 1, an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is equal to the product of the first judgment coefficient lambda 21 and the second judgment coefficient lambda 22, and when the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is 1, bridge damage hidden danger caused by gas pipeline leakage underground space aggregation explosion is considered to exist;
wherein, the safe burial depth calculation process is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a relation between the safe buried depth and the equivalent diameter, wherein HsafeFor safe burial depth DeIs an equivalent diameter andS0is the sectional area of the pipeline, and C is the circumference of the pipeline;
for a connecting line with a circular cross-section, S0=0.785D2And D represents the pipe diameter;
for connecting lines of approximately rectangular cross-section, S0W denotes the rectangular cross-section line width, and H denotes the rectangular cross-section line height.
Further, the fourth step includes:
by the formulaObtaining the emergency capacity value of an engineering emergency team, wherein beta1Representing the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team,denotes a seventh weight coefficient, diThe distance between the emergency disposal unit and the to-be-evaluated gas pipe section is represented, and m represents a correction coefficient;
by the formula β ═ β1v1+β2v2Obtaining an emergency rescue factor, wherein beta represents the emergency rescue factor, v1Representing the weight corresponding to the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team and taking the value of 0.6, beta2Indicating the value of fire emergency capability, v2And the weight corresponding to the fire emergency capacity value is represented and the value is 0.4.
Further, the fifth step includes:
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of the fire to the bridge, wherein xi11、ξ12、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.9, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of explosion to the bridge, wherein xi21、ξ22、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.1, 0.9, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formula R ═ R1κ1+R2κ2Obtaining a pipeline-bridge coupling risk value, wherein k1Representing the weight of the fire on the risk value of the bridge, and taking the value as 0.6; kappa2The weight of the risk value of the explosion to the bridge is represented, and the value is 0.4.
The invention also provides a device for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge, which comprises:
the gas pipeline leakage possibility score acquisition module is used for acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score, wherein the gas pipeline leakage possibility score comprises a pipeline large leakage possibility score and a pipeline tiny leakage possibility score;
the second acquisition module is used for acquiring first evaluation parameters of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, wherein the first evaluation parameters comprise a fire damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge fire vulnerability score value and a bridge influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire to the bridge;
the third acquisition module is used for acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge explosion vulnerability score value and an influence result value of the underground space explosion on the bridge;
the fourth acquisition module is used for acquiring emergency rescue factors;
and the risk evaluation module is used for calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, the first evaluation parameter of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, the second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and the emergency rescue factor.
Further, the process of obtaining the score of the possibility of the large number of leaks in the pipeline in the first obtaining module is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a leakage frequency based on pipeline information, wherein PGIndicating the leakage frequency, P, based on pipeline informationdiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of a pipe section of diameter difiIndicating a leakage frequency, P, of fi, which is the pipe segment covering depthhiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of the pipe section wall thickness hidmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, of pipe sections of different diametersfmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, at different coating depths of the pipe sectionhmaxIndicating the maximum leakage frequency, mu, at different pipe wall thicknesses of the pipe section1Indicating a correction factor, mu, for the type of material of the pipe2Indicates the construction activity degree and mu2=μ21*w1+μ22*w2,μ21Represents the distance, w, of the construction site from the gas pipeline to be evaluated1Represents the first weight and has a value of 0.6, mu22Indicating construction controllability correction factor, w2Represents a second weight and has a value of 0.4;
by the formulaObtaining a third party breach leak frequency final score based on pipeline information, wherein Q11Represents the third party corruption leakage frequency final score, min (P)G) Represents the minimum value of the whole-market gas pipe section, max (P)G) The maximum value of the term of the fuel gas pipe section of the whole city is shown;
by the formula Q1=Q11α1+Q12α2Obtaining a score of the likelihood of a large leak in the pipe, wherein Q1Represents a pipeline high leak probability score, Q12Representing the final score value, alpha, of the probability of a leak due to a geological disaster1The weight which represents the large amount of leakage caused by the third-party construction is 0.8; alpha is alpha2The weight of the large leakage caused by geological disaster is 0.2.
Further, the acquisition process of the score of the possibility of the micro leakage of the pipeline in the first acquisition module is as follows:
by the formula Q2=Q21α3+Q22α4Obtaining a score of the possibility of a micro-leak in the pipe, wherein Q2Indicates a score of a possible minute leakage of the pipe, Q21Indicates the corrosion score, α3Represents a weight of a small leakage caused by corrosion and has a value of 0.5, Q22Indicates the material defect score, alpha4Indicating that the material defect caused a minor leakage weight and has a value of 0.5.
Further, the acquiring process of the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient in the second acquiring module is as follows:
calculating the thermal radiation flux of the bridge caused by gas pipeline leakage by adopting a jet fire model, and taking 12.5KW/m2As a bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, when the calculated thermal radiation flux borne by the bridge exceeds the bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda is obtained1Is 1, otherwise is 0.1, and when the fire damage possibility is judgedCoefficient of discontinuity lambda1When the value is 1, the hidden danger that the bridge is damaged due to gas pipeline leakage exists, wherein the injection fire model is an API521 model or a THORNTON model.
Further, the process of acquiring the score value of the fire vulnerability of the bridge in the second acquisition module is as follows:
by the formula V1=V11ψ11+V12ψ12+V13ψ13+V14ψ14Obtaining a fire vulnerability score value of the bridge, wherein V1Represents the value of the vulnerability of the bridge to fire, V11Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the material type11Represents a third weight and takes 0.3, V12Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the structural member12Represents a fourth weight and takes 0.2, V13Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, due to age13Represents a fifth weight and takes 0.2, V14Indicates the vulnerability score, psi, resulting from the current rating14Represents the sixth weight and takes 0.3.
Further, the acquiring process of the bridge influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire in the second acquiring module is as follows: by the formula C1=C11φ1+C12φ2Obtaining the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, wherein C1Value representing the consequences of a gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, C11Indicating a value of life and property loss, phi1Representing the weight of the loss of life and property, C12Represents a traffic demand impact value and C12=C31×ε31+C32×ε32+C33×ε33,C31Representing the influence of passenger-vehicle flow, C32Score value, C, corresponding to distance to alternate route33Representing the corresponding score value, epsilon, of the bridge service functioniIs a weight factor of the i-th index and epsilon31,ε32,ε33Respectively 0.2, 0.4, phi2Representing the weight taken by the traffic demand impact value.
Further, the process of acquiring the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient in the third acquiring module is as follows:
when the shortest distance between the gas pipeline and the water drainage pipeline is smaller than Rmax, a first judgment coefficient lambda 21 is equal to 1, otherwise, the distance is 0.1, the water drainage pipeline has a safe burial depth, if the actual burial depth of the water drainage pipeline is larger than the safe burial depth, overpressure damage cannot be caused to a ground disaster bearing body, a second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 0.1, otherwise, overpressure damage can be caused to the ground disaster bearing body, the second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 1, an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is equal to the product of the first judgment coefficient lambda 21 and the second judgment coefficient lambda 22, and when the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is 1, bridge damage hidden danger caused by gas pipeline leakage underground space aggregation explosion is considered to exist;
wherein, the safe burial depth calculation process is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a relation between the safe buried depth and the equivalent diameter, wherein HsafeFor safe burial depth DeIs an equivalent diameter andS0is the sectional area of the pipeline, and C is the circumference of the pipeline;
for a connecting line with a circular cross-section, S0=0.785D2And D represents the pipe diameter;
for connecting lines of approximately rectangular cross-section, S0W denotes the rectangular cross-section line width, and H denotes the rectangular cross-section line height.
Further, the fourth obtaining module includes:
by the formulaObtaining the emergency capacity value of an engineering emergency team, wherein beta1Representing the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team,denotes a seventh weight coefficient, diThe distance between the emergency disposal unit and the to-be-evaluated gas pipe section is represented, and m represents a correction coefficient;
by the formula β ═ β1v1+β2v2Obtaining an emergency rescue factor, wherein beta represents the emergency rescue factor, v1Representing the weight corresponding to the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team and taking the value of 0.6, beta2Indicating the value of fire emergency capability, v2And the weight corresponding to the fire emergency capacity value is represented and the value is 0.4.
Further, the risk assessment module comprises:
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of the fire to the bridge, wherein xi11、ξ12、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.9, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of explosion to the bridge, wherein xi21、ξ22、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.1, 0.9, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formula R ═ R1κ1+R2κ2Obtaining a pipeline-bridge coupling risk value, wherein k1Representing the weight of the fire on the risk value of the bridge, and taking the value as 0.6; kappa2The weight of the risk value of the explosion to the bridge is represented, and the value is 0.4.
The invention has the advantages that: the invention establishes a method for identifying the hidden coupling danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge and evaluating the risk, and evaluates the coupling risk of the gas pipeline and the bridge in three aspects of the possibility of leakage of the gas pipeline, the vulnerability of the bridge caused by fire/explosion due to gas leakage and the consequences caused by the fire/explosion.
Drawings
Fig. 1 is a flowchart of a method for identifying and evaluating a gas pipeline-bridge coupling risk according to an embodiment of the present invention;
fig. 2 is a logic process diagram of a method for identifying and evaluating a gas pipeline-bridge coupling risk according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Detailed Description
In order to make the objects, technical solutions and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the embodiments of the present invention, and it is obvious that the described embodiments are some embodiments of the present invention, but not all embodiments. All other embodiments, which can be derived by a person skilled in the art from the embodiments given herein without making any creative effort, shall fall within the protection scope of the present invention.
Example 1
As shown in fig. 1 and fig. 2, the present invention provides a method for identifying and evaluating a gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger, the method comprising:
step S1: acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score, wherein the gas pipeline leakage possibility score comprises a pipeline large leakage possibility score and a pipeline tiny leakage possibility score;
in step S1, the process of acquiring the score of the possibility of a large number of leaks in the pipeline is as follows:
and (3) third-party construction: the pipeline third party construction foundation leakage probability values are calculated as shown in the following table.
TABLE 1 pipeline third party construction foundation leakage probability value calculation
The leak probability correction factors are shown in the following table.
TABLE 2 correction factor for leak probability values
Combining tables 1 and 2 by formulaObtaining a leakage frequency based on pipeline information, wherein PGIndicating the leakage frequency, P, based on pipeline informationdiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of a pipe section of diameter difiIndicating a leakage frequency, P, of fi, which is the pipe segment covering depthhiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of the pipe section wall thickness hidmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, of pipe sections of different diametersfmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, at different coating depths of the pipe sectionhmaxIndicating the maximum leakage frequency, mu, at different pipe wall thicknesses of the pipe section1Indicating a correction factor, mu, for the type of material of the pipe2Indicates the construction activity degree and mu2=μ21*w1+μ22*w2,μ21Represents the distance, w, of the construction site from the gas pipeline to be evaluated1Represents the first weight and has a value of 0.6, mu22Indicating construction controllability correction factor, w2Represents a second weight and has a value of 0.4;
by the formulaObtaining a third party breach leak frequency final score based on pipeline information, wherein Q11Represents the third party corruption leakage frequency final score, min (P)G) Represents the minimum value of the whole-market gas pipe section, max (P)G) The maximum value of the term of the fuel gas pipe section of the whole city is shown;
geological disaster:
the pipeline geological disaster base leakage probability values are calculated as shown in the following table.
TABLE 3 pipeline geological disaster base leak probability value calculation
The leak probability correction factors are shown in the following table.
TABLE 4 correction factor for leak probability values
The calculation of the leakage probability caused by the geological disaster is consistent with the third-party construction, so that the detailed description is omitted.
Combining tables 3 and 4, by formula Q1=Q11α1+Q12α2Obtaining a score of the likelihood of a large leak in the pipe, wherein Q1Represents a pipeline high leak probability score, Q12Representing the final score value, alpha, of the probability of a leak due to a geological disaster1The weight which represents the large amount of leakage caused by the third-party construction is 0.8; alpha is alpha2The weight of the large leakage caused by geological disaster is 0.2.
The process of acquiring the score of the possibility of a small leak in the pipe in step S1 is as follows:
the pipeline corrosion base leak probability values are calculated as shown in the following table.
TABLE 5 calculation of pipeline Corrosion basis probability
The leak probability correction factors are shown in the following table.
TABLE 6 leak probability correction factor
TABLE 7 probability of material defect basis leakage
TABLE 8 leak probability correction factor
The calculation of the leakage probability caused by corrosion and material defects is consistent with that of third-party construction, so that the detailed description is omitted. The weight of the corrosion and material defect indicators is shown in the following table.
TABLE 9 weights corresponding to indexes of respective levels
Note: if the actual index data can not be acquired, the weight equal ratio is distributed to the index corresponding to the acquirable data.
Combining tables 5 to 9, by formula Q2=Q21α3+Q22α4Obtaining a score of the possibility of a micro-leak in the pipe, wherein Q2Indicates a score of a possible minute leakage of the pipe, Q21Indicates the corrosion score, α3Represents a weight of a small leakage caused by corrosion and has a value of 0.5, Q22Indicates the material defect score, alpha4Indicating that the material defect caused a minor leakage weight and has a value of 0.5.
Step S2: acquiring first evaluation parameters of bridge fire caused by gas leakage, wherein the first evaluation parameters comprise a fire damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge fire vulnerability score value and a bridge influence consequence value of gas pipeline leakage fire to the bridge;
the acquiring process of the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient in the step S2 is as follows:
the main failure mechanism of a jet fire to a bridge is thermal radiation. And judging whether the bridge is damaged or not according to a heat flux criterion, wherein the heat flux criterion is shown in a table 10. Calculating the thermal radiation flux of the bridge caused by gas pipeline leakage by adopting a domestic and foreign universal fire injection model, and taking 12.5KW/m2As a bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, when the calculated thermal radiation flux borne by the bridge exceeds the bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda is obtained1Is 1, otherwise is 0.1, and when the possibility of fire damage is judged, the coefficient lambda is1When the value is 1, the hidden danger that the bridge is damaged due to gas pipeline leakage exists, wherein the injection fire model is an API521 model or a THORNTON model.
TABLE 10 thermal radiation flux injury guidelines
The process of obtaining the score value of the fire vulnerability of the bridge in the step S2 is as follows:
the section selects four aspects of the material type of the bearing body bridge, the damaged structural member, the service life and the current bridge rating to evaluate the vulnerability of the bridge. By the formula V1=V11ψ11+V12ψ12+V13ψ13+V14ψ14Obtaining a fire vulnerability score value of the bridge, wherein V1Represents the value of the vulnerability of the bridge to fire, V11Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the material type11Represents a third weight and takes 0.3, V12Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the structural member12Represents a fourth weight and takes 0.2, V13Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, due to age13Represents a fifth weight and takes 0.2, V14Indicates the vulnerability score, psi, resulting from the current rating14Represents the sixth weight and takes 0.3.
The following explanation is made in terms of the type of the material of the supporting bridge, the damaged structural member, the service life and the rating of the current bridge.
Type of Material V11
The urban bridge can be divided into four types according to the material types: reinforced concrete bridges, prestressed concrete bridges, steel-concrete composite bridges and steel bridges. The prestressed concrete is prestressed before use, so that the strength of the steel bar is reduced at high temperature, the fire resistance limit of the prestressed concrete is also reduced, and hidden danger exists in fire fighting. Steel has a high thermal conductivity and a low heat capacity compared to concrete, the temperature of steel rapidly increases in a fire, and the strength and elastic modulus of steel are very sensitive to temperature changes, and the increase in temperature causes the strength and elastic modulus of steel to rapidly decrease, resulting in a decrease in the bearing capacity of a steel member.
The bridge material type vulnerability index score is shown in table 11.
TABLE 11 materials type score Condition
Type of material (psi)1=0.3) | Score V11 |
Reinforced concrete bridge | 4 |
Prestressed concrete bridge | 6 |
Steel-concrete combined bridge | 8 |
Steel bridge | 10 |
Structural member V12
By referring to 'evaluation standards of technical conditions of highway bridges' and considering damage to urban bridges caused by fire injection, structural members such as main beams, supports, piers, bridge deck pavement and the like are selected as structural member evaluation indexes. And analyzing the bridge part directly acted by the jet fire, and obtaining the corresponding index score according to the following table.
TABLE 12 structural Member score
Structural member (psi)2=0.2) | Score V12 |
Upper general structural member (Wet joint, diaphragm, etc.) | 4 |
Bridge pier | 6 |
Abutment | 8 |
Main beam | 10 |
Service life V13
As the operating time increases, the probability of failure increases for the bridge. The unified design standard for the reliability of building structures stipulates that the service life of bridge design in China is 100 years to 120 years, and the reference document [2] divides the service life into five grades.
The bridge age vulnerability index score is shown in table 13.
TABLE 13 service life score
Service life (psi)3=0.2) | Score V13 |
<25 | 2 |
25~50 | 4 |
50~75 | 6 |
75~100 | 8 |
≥100 | 10 |
Current rating V14
The bridge technical condition evaluation aims to comprehensively describe the defects of all parts of the bridge, evaluate the bridge technical condition, record basic characteristics of the bridge, establish a sound bridge technical file, provide decision support for maintaining, repairing and reinforcing the bridge, enable the bridge to be in a good working state for a long time, and finally effectively manage and monitor the condition of the operated bridge.
The existing condition of the bridge is rated according to the evaluation standard of the technical condition of the highway bridge, when the rating of the bridge is low, the bridge is more easily damaged by fire due to various defects such as concrete carbonization, steel bar corrosion and the like, and therefore, the current rating of the bridge can be used as one of indexes of the fire vulnerability of the bridge.
The bridge current rating vulnerability indicator score is shown in table 14.
TABLE 14 bridge present rating score
In the step S2, the acquiring process of the bridge influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire is as follows: by the formula C1=C11φ1+C12φ2Obtaining the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, wherein C1Consequence value C for representing influence of gas pipeline leakage fire on bridge11Denotes a loss value of life and property, phi1Representing the weight of the loss of life and property, C12Represents a traffic demand impact value and C12=C31×ε31+C32×ε32+C33×ε33,C31Representing the influence of passenger-vehicle flow, C32Score value, C, corresponding to distance to alternate route33Representing the corresponding score value, epsilon, of the bridge service functioniIs a weight factor of the i-th index and epsilon31,ε32,ε33Respectively 0.2, 0.4, phi2Representing the weight taken by the traffic demand impact value.
Wherein the value of loss of life and property C12The acquisition of (a) is as follows:
gas combustionWhen a fire accident occurs in the pipeline, people may be injured or even die. The influence of different heat radiation fluxes on the human body can be known from table 10. As can be seen from Table 10, 4.0KW/m2The heat radiation flux incident for more than 20s can cause pain, 9.5KW/m2Thermal radiation flux incident for 8s will cause the person to reach the pain limit and 20s will cause the person to burn second degree. Because the jet fire is an open fire, people around the fire can respond for a certain time to escape, and death accidents generally cannot occur. Therefore, 9.5KW/m which has short selection time and can cause certain harm to personnel is selected2As a thermal radiation flux threshold for personal injury. Estimate 9.5KW/m2The maximum number of injured people M can be calculated according to the maximum personnel density in the range corresponding to the thermal radiation flux.
The life and property loss correspondence score can be obtained from the following table:
TABLE 15 service life score
Traffic demand impact value C12The acquisition of (a) is as follows:
the bridge is an important infrastructure in a traffic system, and once an accident occurs, the normal operation of the whole traffic network is influenced. The model researches the traffic demand of the bridge from three items of traffic flow, distance to a standby route and a bridge service function.
(1) Flow rate of people and vehicle C31
And grading the pedestrian/traffic flow passing through the bridge according to the comprehensive consideration of the pedestrian/traffic flow of the affected bridge in one year to obtain the corresponding score. For a railroad bridge, default is 3 points.
Table 16 bridge pedestrian and vehicle flow corresponding fractional value table
Flow of people/vehicles | Corresponding score |
Chinese character shao (a Chinese character of 'shao') | 1 |
Is less | 3 |
In general | 5 |
Much more | 7 |
Multiple purpose | 10 |
(2) Distance C to alternate route32
When the gas pipeline is sprayed with fire to affect the bridge, the bridge cannot pass through vehicles or pedestrians, and other routes must be selected for going out at the moment, so that loss is caused by traffic delay. The distance to backup route score is given in the following table. For a railroad bridge, default is 3 points.
TABLE 17 distance to alternate route corresponding scores
Distance to backup route/m | Corresponding score |
<500 | 1 |
500~1000 | 5 |
>1000 | 10 |
(3) Service function C33
The values of the bridge service function score are as follows.
Table 18 bridge service function correspondence score
Bridge service function | Corresponding score |
Foot bridge | 1 |
Motor |
5 |
Motor vehicle axle with sidewalk | 7 |
Railway bridge | 10 |
Referring to tables 16 through 18, the traffic demand score can be calculated by: c12=C31×ε31+C32×ε32+C33×ε33。
Step S3: acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a score value of bridge explosion vulnerability and a result value of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion;
the process of acquiring the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient in step S3 is as follows:
the main failure mechanism of underground space (generally, drainage pipeline, and the drainage pipeline is used to replace underground space in the following) explosion to bridge is overpressure injury. It is therefore first determined whether an explosion of the drain line can occur and whether overpressure damage can be caused. According to the existing research experiment, the maximum value Rmax of the gas diffusion distance always exists, the research result of the German Water and gas Association (DVGW) considers that the Rmax is 12.5m, when the shortest distance between a gas pipeline and a water drainage pipeline is smaller than the Rmax, the first judgment coefficient lambda 21 is 1, otherwise the first judgment coefficient is 0.1, the water drainage pipeline has a safe buried depth, if the actual buried depth of the water drainage pipeline is larger than the safe buried depth, overpressure damage cannot be caused to a ground disaster bearing body, the second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is 0.1, otherwise, overpressure damage can be caused to the ground disaster bearing body, the second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is 1, the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is equal to the product of the first judgment coefficient lambda 21 and the second judgment coefficient lambda 22, and when the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is 1, the hidden danger of bridge damage caused by gas pipeline leakage underground space aggregation explosion is considered to exist;
wherein, the safe burial depth calculation process is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a relation between the safe buried depth and the equivalent diameter, wherein HsafeFor safe burial depth DeIs an equivalent diameter andS0is the sectional area of the pipeline, and C is the circumference of the pipeline;
for a connecting line with a circular cross-section, S0=0.785D2And D represents the pipe diameter;
for connecting lines of approximately rectangular cross-section, S0W denotes the rectangular cross-section line width, and H denotes the rectangular cross-section line height.
And the score value V of the bridge explosion vulnerability in the step S32The acquisition process comprises the following steps:
the bridge explosive vulnerability is evaluated according to the following table.
TABLE 19 bridge explosion vulnerability score
The result value C of the influence of the underground space explosion on the bridge in the step S32The influence of the explosion in the underground space on the bridge is mainly the traffic influence, and the influence of the explosion in the underground space on the bridge is consistent with the influence of the fire on the bridge traffic, so the details are not repeated herein.
Step S4: acquiring an emergency rescue factor; the specific process is as follows:
the gas company, the government and the emergency service department in the same city are not greatly different. Under the condition that the emergency rescue force is relatively abundant, the emergency system is complete, and the quality of emergency personnel is strong, the emergency rescue capacity can be represented by the time of the emergency rescue vehicle arriving at the scene and the accident recovery capacity.
The emergency response capability of engineering rescue team (beta 1) and fire fighting (beta 2) is represented by the distance between a gas pipeline to be evaluated and the nearest gas emergency maintenance station, emergency rescue unit, second-level and above medical institutions. Take the unit emergency repair capability of gas as an example, by formulaObtaining the emergency capacity value of an engineering emergency team, wherein beta1Indicating emergency for engineering emergency teamThe capacity value of the material is shown,the seventh weight coefficient is expressed, and is inversely related to the traffic jam condition of the city, namely the more serious the traffic jam of the city is,the smaller. diThe distance between the emergency disposal unit and the to-be-evaluated gas pipe section is represented, and m represents a correction coefficient; beta is a2Calculation method and beta1The same is true.
By the formula β ═ β1v1+β2v2Obtaining an emergency rescue factor, wherein beta represents the emergency rescue factor, v1Representing the weight corresponding to the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team and taking the value of 0.6, beta2Indicating the value of fire emergency capability, v2And the weight corresponding to the fire emergency capacity value is represented and the value is 0.4.
Step S5: and calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, a first evaluation parameter of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and an emergency rescue factor. The specific process is as follows:
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of the fire to the bridge, wherein xi11、ξ12、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.9, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of explosion to the bridge, wherein xi21、ξ22、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.1, 0.9, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formula R ═ R1κ1+R2κ2Acquisition pipeline-a bridge coupling risk value, wherein κ1Representing the weight of the fire on the risk value of the bridge, and taking the value as 0.6; kappa2The weight of the risk value of the explosion to the bridge is represented, and the value is 0.4.
Converting the risk value into a percentile system, and classifying the pipeline-bridge coupling risk value grades: r is more than or equal to 0 and less than 40 and is divided into four stages, R is more than or equal to 40 and less than 60 and is divided into three stages, R is more than or equal to 60 and less than 80 and is divided into two stages, and R is more than or equal to 80 and less than 100 and is divided into one stage.
Through the technical scheme, the method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge, provided by the invention, is used for establishing a method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge, and evaluating the coupling risk of the gas pipeline and the bridge in three aspects of the possibility of leakage of the gas pipeline, the vulnerability of the bridge caused by the gas leakage to fire/explosion and the consequences caused by the fire/explosion.
Example 2
The invention also provides a device for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge, which comprises:
the gas pipeline leakage possibility score acquisition module is used for acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score, wherein the gas pipeline leakage possibility score comprises a pipeline large leakage possibility score and a pipeline tiny leakage possibility score;
the second acquisition module is used for acquiring first evaluation parameters of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, wherein the first evaluation parameters comprise a fire damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge fire vulnerability score value and a bridge influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire to the bridge;
the third acquisition module is used for acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge explosion vulnerability score value and an influence result value of the underground space explosion on the bridge;
the fourth acquisition module is used for acquiring emergency rescue factors;
and the risk evaluation module is used for calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, the first evaluation parameter of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, the second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and the emergency rescue factor.
Specifically, the process of acquiring the score of the possibility of a large number of leaks in the pipeline in the first acquiring module is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a leakage frequency based on pipeline information, wherein PGIndicating the leakage frequency, P, based on pipeline informationdiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of a pipe section of diameter difiIndicating a leakage frequency, P, of fi, which is the pipe segment covering depthhiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of the pipe section wall thickness hidmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, of pipe sections of different diametersfmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, at different coating depths of the pipe sectionhmaxIndicating the maximum leakage frequency, mu, at different pipe wall thicknesses of the pipe section1Indicating a correction factor, mu, for the type of material of the pipe2Indicates the construction activity degree and mu2=μ21*w1+μ22*w2,μ21Represents the distance, w, of the construction site from the gas pipeline to be evaluated1Represents the first weight and has a value of 0.6, mu22Indicating construction controllability correction factor, w2Represents a second weight and has a value of 0.4;
by the formulaObtaining a third party breach leak frequency final score based on pipeline information, wherein Q11Represents the third party corruption leakage frequency final score, min (P)G) Represents the minimum value of the whole-market gas pipe section, max (P)G) The maximum value of the term of the fuel gas pipe section of the whole city is shown;
by the formula Q1=Q11α1+Q12α2Obtaining a score of the likelihood of a large leak in the pipe, wherein Q1Represents a pipeline high leak probability score, Q12Representing the final score value, alpha, of the probability of a leak due to a geological disaster1Weight for representing large amount of leakage caused by third-party constructionA value of 0.8; alpha is alpha2The weight of the large leakage caused by geological disaster is 0.2.
Specifically, the process of acquiring the score of the tiny leakage possibility of the pipeline in the first acquiring module is as follows:
by the formula Q2=Q21α3+Q22α4Obtaining a score of the possibility of a micro-leak in the pipe, wherein Q2Indicates a score of a possible minute leakage of the pipe, Q21Indicates the corrosion score, α3Represents a weight of a small leakage caused by corrosion and has a value of 0.5, Q22Indicates the material defect score, alpha4Indicating that the material defect caused a minor leakage weight and has a value of 0.5.
Specifically, the acquiring process of the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient in the second acquiring module is as follows:
calculating the thermal radiation flux of the bridge caused by gas pipeline leakage by adopting a jet fire model, and taking 12.5KW/m2As a bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, when the calculated thermal radiation flux borne by the bridge exceeds the bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda is obtained1Is 1, otherwise is 0.1, and when the possibility of fire damage is judged, the coefficient lambda is1When the value is 1, the hidden danger that the bridge is damaged due to gas pipeline leakage exists, wherein the injection fire model is an API521 model or a THORNTON model.
Specifically, the process of acquiring the score value of the fire vulnerability of the bridge in the second acquisition module is as follows:
by the formula V1=V11ψ11+V12ψ12+V13ψ13+V14ψ14Obtaining a fire vulnerability score value of the bridge, wherein V1Represents the value of the vulnerability of the bridge to fire, V11Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the material type11Represents a third weight and takes 0.3, V12Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the structural member12Represents a fourth weight and takes 0.2, V13Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, due to age13Represents a fifth weight and takes 0.2, V14Indicates the presentVulnerability score, psi, resulting from rating14Represents the sixth weight and takes 0.3.
Specifically, the process for acquiring the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge in the second acquisition module is as follows: by the formula C1=C11φ1+C12φ2Obtaining the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, wherein C1Value representing the consequences of a gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, C11Indicating a value of life and property loss, phi1Representing the weight of the loss of life and property, C12Represents a traffic demand impact value and C12=C31×ε31+C32×ε32+C33×ε33,C31Representing the influence of passenger-vehicle flow, C32Score value, C, corresponding to distance to alternate route33Representing the corresponding score value, epsilon, of the bridge service functioniIs a weight factor of the i-th index and epsilon31,ε32,ε33Respectively 0.2, 0.4, phi2Representing the weight taken by the traffic demand impact value.
Specifically, the process of acquiring the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient in the third acquiring module is as follows:
when the shortest distance between the gas pipeline and the water drainage pipeline is smaller than Rmax, a first judgment coefficient lambda 21 is equal to 1, otherwise, the distance is 0.1, the water drainage pipeline has a safe burial depth, if the actual burial depth of the water drainage pipeline is larger than the safe burial depth, overpressure damage cannot be caused to a ground disaster bearing body, a second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 0.1, otherwise, overpressure damage can be caused to the ground disaster bearing body, the second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 1, an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is equal to the product of the first judgment coefficient lambda 21 and the second judgment coefficient lambda 22, and when the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is 1, bridge damage hidden danger caused by gas pipeline leakage underground space aggregation explosion is considered to exist;
wherein, the safe burial depth calculation process is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a relation between the safe buried depth and the equivalent diameter, wherein HsafeFor safe burial depth DeIs an equivalent diameter andS0is the sectional area of the pipeline, and C is the circumference of the pipeline;
for a connecting line with a circular cross-section, S0=0.785D2And D represents the pipe diameter;
for connecting lines of approximately rectangular cross-section, S0W denotes the rectangular cross-section line width, and H denotes the rectangular cross-section line height.
Specifically, the fourth obtaining module includes:
by the formulaObtaining the emergency capacity value of an engineering emergency team, wherein beta1Representing the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team,denotes a seventh weight coefficient, diThe distance between the emergency disposal unit and the to-be-evaluated gas pipe section is represented, and m represents a correction coefficient;
by the formula β ═ β1v1+β2v2Obtaining an emergency rescue factor, wherein beta represents the emergency rescue factor, v1Representing the weight corresponding to the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team and taking the value of 0.6, beta2Indicating the value of fire emergency capability, v2And the weight corresponding to the fire emergency capacity value is represented and the value is 0.4.
Specifically, the risk assessment module includes:
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of the fire to the bridge, wherein xi11、ξ12、σ11、σ12、σ13Are all weighted andthe values are respectively 0.9, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of explosion to the bridge, wherein xi21、ξ22、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.1, 0.9, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formula R ═ R1κ1+R2κ2Obtaining a pipeline-bridge coupling risk value, wherein k1Representing the weight of the fire on the risk value of the bridge, and taking the value as 0.6; kappa2The weight of the risk value of the explosion to the bridge is represented, and the value is 0.4.
The above examples are only intended to illustrate the technical solution of the present invention, but not to limit it; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that: the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments may still be modified, or some technical features may be equivalently replaced; and such modifications or substitutions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the corresponding technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.
Claims (10)
1. A method for identifying and evaluating a gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger is characterized by comprising the following steps:
the method comprises the following steps: acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score, wherein the gas pipeline leakage possibility score comprises a pipeline large leakage possibility score and a pipeline tiny leakage possibility score;
step two: acquiring first evaluation parameters of bridge fire caused by gas leakage, wherein the first evaluation parameters comprise a fire damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge fire vulnerability score value and a bridge influence consequence value of gas pipeline leakage fire to the bridge;
step three: acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a score value of bridge explosion vulnerability and a result value of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion;
step four: acquiring an emergency rescue factor;
step five: and calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, a first evaluation parameter of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and an emergency rescue factor.
2. The method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process of obtaining the score of the possibility of the large amount of leakage of the pipeline in the step one is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a leakage frequency based on pipeline information, wherein PGIndicating the leakage frequency, P, based on pipeline informationdiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of a pipe section of diameter difiIndicating a leakage frequency, P, of fi, which is the pipe segment covering depthhiIndicating the leakage frequency, P, of the pipe section wall thickness hidmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, of pipe sections of different diametersfmaxRepresenting the maximum leakage frequency, P, at different coating depths of the pipe sectionhmaxIndicating the maximum leakage frequency, mu, at different pipe wall thicknesses of the pipe section1Indicating a correction factor, mu, for the type of material of the pipe2Indicates the construction activity degree and mu2=μ21*w1+μ22*w2,μ21Represents the distance, w, of the construction site from the gas pipeline to be evaluated1Represents the first weight and has a value of 0.6, mu22Indicating construction controllability correction factor, w2Represents a second weight and has a value of 0.4;
by the formulaObtaining a third party breach leak frequency final score based on pipeline information, wherein Q11Indicating third party corruption leakage frequencyRate Final score, min (P)G) Represents the minimum value of the whole-market gas pipe section, max (P)G) The maximum value of the term of the fuel gas pipe section of the whole city is shown;
by the formula Q1=Q11α1+Q12α2Obtaining a score of the likelihood of a large leak in the pipe, wherein Q1Represents a pipeline high leak probability score, Q12Representing the final score value, alpha, of the probability of a leak due to a geological disaster1The weight which represents the large amount of leakage caused by the third-party construction is 0.8; alpha is alpha2The weight of the large leakage caused by geological disaster is 0.2.
3. The method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge as claimed in claim 1, wherein the process of obtaining the score of the possibility of the small leakage of the pipeline in the first step is as follows:
by the formula Q2=Q21α3+Q22α4Obtaining a score of the possibility of a micro-leak in the pipe, wherein Q2Indicates a score of a possible minute leakage of the pipe, Q21Indicates the corrosion score, α3Represents a weight of a small leakage caused by corrosion and has a value of 0.5, Q22Indicates the material defect score, alpha4Indicating that the material defect caused a minor leakage weight and has a value of 0.5.
4. The method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge as claimed in claim 1, wherein the acquiring process of the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient in the second step is as follows:
calculating the thermal radiation flux of the bridge caused by gas pipeline leakage by adopting a jet fire model, and taking 12.5KW/m2As a bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, when the calculated thermal radiation flux borne by the bridge exceeds the bridge thermal radiation flux threshold, the fire damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda is obtained1Is 1, otherwise is 0.1, and when the possibility of fire damage is judged, the coefficient lambda is1When the fuel gas leakage rate is 1, the hidden danger of bridge damage caused by fuel gas pipeline leakage exists, wherein the injection fire model is API521A model or a THORNTON model.
5. The method for identifying and evaluating the gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger according to claim 1, wherein the second step is a step of acquiring the score value of the bridge fire vulnerability:
by the formula V1=V11ψ11+V12ψ12+V13ψ13+V14ψ14Obtaining a fire vulnerability score value of the bridge, wherein V1Represents the value of the vulnerability of the bridge to fire, V11Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the material type11Represents a third weight and takes 0.3, V12Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, caused by the structural member12Represents a fourth weight and takes 0.2, V13Indicating the vulnerability score, psi, due to age13Represents a fifth weight and takes 0.2, V14Indicates the vulnerability score, psi, resulting from the current rating14Represents the sixth weight and takes 0.3.
6. The method for identifying and evaluating the gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger according to claim 1, wherein in the second step, the obtaining process of the bridge influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire is as follows: by the formula C1=C11φ1+C12φ2Obtaining the influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, wherein C1Value representing the consequences of a gas pipeline leakage fire on the bridge, C11Indicating a value of life and property loss, phi1Representing the weight of the loss of life and property, C12Represents a traffic demand impact value and C12=C31×ε31+C32×ε32+C33×ε33,C31Representing the influence of passenger-vehicle flow, C32Score value, C, corresponding to distance to alternate route33Representing the corresponding score value, epsilon, of the bridge service functioniIs a weight factor of the i-th index and epsilon31,ε32,ε33Respectively 0.2, 0.4 and 0.4,φ2Representing the weight taken by the traffic demand impact value.
7. The method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge as claimed in claim 1, wherein the obtaining process of the judgment coefficient of the explosion damage possibility in the third step is as follows:
when the shortest distance between the gas pipeline and the water drainage pipeline is smaller than Rmax, a first judgment coefficient lambda 21 is equal to 1, otherwise, the distance is 0.1, the water drainage pipeline has a safe burial depth, if the actual burial depth of the water drainage pipeline is larger than the safe burial depth, overpressure damage cannot be caused to a ground disaster bearing body, a second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 0.1, otherwise, overpressure damage can be caused to the ground disaster bearing body, the second judgment coefficient lambda 22 is equal to 1, an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is equal to the product of the first judgment coefficient lambda 21 and the second judgment coefficient lambda 22, and when the explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient lambda 2 is 1, bridge damage hidden danger caused by gas pipeline leakage underground space aggregation explosion is considered to exist;
wherein, the safe burial depth calculation process is as follows:
by the formulaObtaining a relation between the safe buried depth and the equivalent diameter, wherein HsafeFor safe burial depth DeIs an equivalent diameter andS0is the sectional area of the pipeline, and C is the circumference of the pipeline;
for a connecting line with a circular cross-section, s0=0.785D2And D represents the pipe diameter;
for connecting lines of approximately rectangular cross-section, S0W denotes the rectangular cross-section line width, and H denotes the rectangular cross-section line height.
8. The method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fourth step comprises:
by the formulaObtaining the emergency capacity value of an engineering emergency team, wherein beta1Representing the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team,denotes a seventh weight coefficient, diThe distance between the emergency disposal unit and the to-be-evaluated gas pipe section is represented, and m represents a correction coefficient;
by the formula β ═ β1v1+β2v2Obtaining an emergency rescue factor, wherein beta represents the emergency rescue factor, v1Representing the weight corresponding to the emergency capacity value of the engineering rescue team and taking the value of 0.6, beta2Indicating the value of fire emergency capability, v2And the weight corresponding to the fire emergency capacity value is represented and the value is 0.4.
9. The method for identifying and evaluating the coupling hidden danger of the gas pipeline and the bridge as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step five comprises:
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of the fire to the bridge, wherein xi11、ξ12、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.9, 0.1, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formulaAcquiring a risk value of explosion to the bridge, wherein xi21、ξ22、σ11、σ12、σ13The weights are respectively 0.1, 0.9, 0.3 and 0.4;
by the formula R ═ R1κ1+R2κ2Obtaining a pipeline-bridge coupling risk value, wherein k1Representing the weight of the fire on the risk value of the bridge, and taking the value as 0.6; kappa2The weight of the risk value of the explosion to the bridge is represented, and the value is 0.4.
10. An apparatus for identifying and evaluating coupling hidden danger of a gas pipeline bridge, the apparatus comprising:
the gas pipeline leakage possibility score acquisition module is used for acquiring a gas pipeline leakage possibility score, wherein the gas pipeline leakage possibility score comprises a pipeline large leakage possibility score and a pipeline tiny leakage possibility score;
the second acquisition module is used for acquiring first evaluation parameters of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, wherein the first evaluation parameters comprise a fire damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge fire vulnerability score value and a bridge influence consequence value of the gas pipeline leakage fire to the bridge;
the third acquisition module is used for acquiring a second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by the underground space explosion, wherein the second evaluation parameter comprises an explosion damage possibility judgment coefficient, a bridge explosion vulnerability score value and an influence result value of the underground space explosion on the bridge;
the fourth acquisition module is used for acquiring emergency rescue factors;
and the risk evaluation module is used for calculating the risk level according to the gas pipeline leakage possibility score, the first evaluation parameter of the bridge fire caused by gas leakage, the second evaluation parameter of the bridge influenced by underground space explosion and the emergency rescue factor.
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
CN202011354522.3A CN112633633B (en) | 2020-11-27 | 2020-11-27 | Method and device for identifying and evaluating gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
CN202011354522.3A CN112633633B (en) | 2020-11-27 | 2020-11-27 | Method and device for identifying and evaluating gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
CN112633633A true CN112633633A (en) | 2021-04-09 |
CN112633633B CN112633633B (en) | 2021-12-10 |
Family
ID=75306468
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
CN202011354522.3A Active CN112633633B (en) | 2020-11-27 | 2020-11-27 | Method and device for identifying and evaluating gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
CN (1) | CN112633633B (en) |
Cited By (2)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
CN114676990A (en) * | 2022-03-16 | 2022-06-28 | 合肥泽众城市智能科技有限公司 | Method and device for grading coupling hidden danger of gas pipeline and adjacent underground pipe network |
CN117764374A (en) * | 2023-11-15 | 2024-03-26 | 北京市燃气集团有限责任公司 | Multi-factor coupled gas pipeline hidden danger identification and risk assessment method and device |
Citations (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JP2001041844A (en) * | 1999-08-03 | 2001-02-16 | T & T:Kk | Liquid leakage sensor |
US20060019402A1 (en) * | 2001-01-30 | 2006-01-26 | Industrial Scientific Corporation | Method of warning of poisoning in poison resistant combustible gas sensors |
CN106097642A (en) * | 2016-08-19 | 2016-11-09 | 徐州江煤科技有限公司 | A kind of city integrated piping lane intelligent monitoring and alarm device |
CN109210383A (en) * | 2018-09-05 | 2019-01-15 | 广州市城市规划勘测设计研究院 | Urban Pipeline Carrying Natural Gas monitoring method and system based on NB-IOT |
CN109345148A (en) * | 2018-11-26 | 2019-02-15 | 南智(重庆)能源技术有限公司 | Natural gas line and the intelligent diagnosing method of station process unit security risk identification |
CN110059910A (en) * | 2019-02-18 | 2019-07-26 | 北京兴泰科技有限公司 | Production safety emergency rescue command centre comprehensive management platform |
CN111932120A (en) * | 2020-08-11 | 2020-11-13 | 安徽泽众安全科技有限公司 | Method and system for evaluating explosion risk of gas pipe network leakage under geological disaster |
-
2020
- 2020-11-27 CN CN202011354522.3A patent/CN112633633B/en active Active
Patent Citations (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JP2001041844A (en) * | 1999-08-03 | 2001-02-16 | T & T:Kk | Liquid leakage sensor |
US20060019402A1 (en) * | 2001-01-30 | 2006-01-26 | Industrial Scientific Corporation | Method of warning of poisoning in poison resistant combustible gas sensors |
CN106097642A (en) * | 2016-08-19 | 2016-11-09 | 徐州江煤科技有限公司 | A kind of city integrated piping lane intelligent monitoring and alarm device |
CN109210383A (en) * | 2018-09-05 | 2019-01-15 | 广州市城市规划勘测设计研究院 | Urban Pipeline Carrying Natural Gas monitoring method and system based on NB-IOT |
CN109345148A (en) * | 2018-11-26 | 2019-02-15 | 南智(重庆)能源技术有限公司 | Natural gas line and the intelligent diagnosing method of station process unit security risk identification |
CN110059910A (en) * | 2019-02-18 | 2019-07-26 | 北京兴泰科技有限公司 | Production safety emergency rescue command centre comprehensive management platform |
CN111932120A (en) * | 2020-08-11 | 2020-11-13 | 安徽泽众安全科技有限公司 | Method and system for evaluating explosion risk of gas pipe network leakage under geological disaster |
Non-Patent Citations (5)
Title |
---|
SHUANG LI ET AL.: "QRA-Grid:Quantitative Risk Analysis and Grid-based Pre-warning Model for urban Natural Gas Pipeline", 《INTERNATIONAL JONRNAL OF GEO-INFORMATION》 * |
ZEWEI ZHANG ET AL.: "Optimization monitoring distribution method for gas pipeline leakage detection in underground spaces", 《TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY》 * |
付明: "智慧安全 守护城市生命线", 《劳动保护》 * |
吴波 等: "燃气高压场站典型管材的韧脆转变温度及其影响因素", 《理化检验(物理分册)》 * |
谭琼 等: "燃气管线相邻地下空间安全监测方法及其应用研究", 《安全与环境学报》 * |
Cited By (2)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
CN114676990A (en) * | 2022-03-16 | 2022-06-28 | 合肥泽众城市智能科技有限公司 | Method and device for grading coupling hidden danger of gas pipeline and adjacent underground pipe network |
CN117764374A (en) * | 2023-11-15 | 2024-03-26 | 北京市燃气集团有限责任公司 | Multi-factor coupled gas pipeline hidden danger identification and risk assessment method and device |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
CN112633633B (en) | 2021-12-10 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
CN110675038B (en) | Urban underground comprehensive pipe gallery risk assessment method based on control force | |
Zhang et al. | Causes and statistical characteristics of bridge failures: A review | |
Pitilakis et al. | Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines | |
Lee et al. | A study of US bridge failures (1980-2012) | |
CN112633552B (en) | Gas pipeline and peripheral pipeline coupling hidden danger identification and risk assessment method and system | |
CN112633633B (en) | Method and device for identifying and evaluating gas pipeline-bridge coupling hidden danger | |
Oh et al. | Disaster impact analysis based on inter‐relationship of critical infrastructure and associated industries: A winter flood disaster event | |
CN111932120B (en) | Method and system for evaluating explosion risk of gas pipe network leakage under geological disaster | |
Imam et al. | A review of metallic bridge failure statistics | |
Mitoulis et al. | Bridge and transport network resilience–a perspective | |
CN113807655A (en) | Urban lifeline pipeline operation risk assessment method and device and electronic equipment | |
CN112529265A (en) | Comprehensive risk assessment and prediction method and system for gas pipeline | |
Abé et al. | Performance of railway bridges during the 2011 Tōhoku Earthquake | |
CN105427189A (en) | Power grid vulnerability evaluation method under landslide hazard | |
CN106503925A (en) | A kind of city gas polyethylene pipe failure accidents analyze realization method and system | |
Kitagawa et al. | Overview of the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake and proposals for earthquake mitigation measures | |
Ramli et al. | Malaysian bridges and the influence of Sumatran earthquake in bridge design | |
CN116227910A (en) | Urban gas pipeline leakage risk assessment method | |
Oh et al. | Impact analysis of natural calamities on infrastructure and industries | |
Rais et al. | Pipelines at Bridge Crossings: Empirical-Based Seismic Vulnerability Index | |
McAllister et al. | Assessment of resilience in codes, standards, regulations, and best practices for buildings and infrastructure systems | |
Pitilakis et al. | Vulnerability and risk assessment of lifelines | |
CN113971303A (en) | Optimization method of culvert trenchless repair technology | |
Knox Jr | Causation, The Flood Exclusion, and Katrina | |
Dolce et al. | Emergency management for lifelines and rapid response after L’Aquila earthquake |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
PB01 | Publication | ||
PB01 | Publication | ||
SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
GR01 | Patent grant | ||
GR01 | Patent grant |