Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ress

An integrated gas supply reliability evaluation method of the large-scale

and complex natural gas pipeline network based on demand-side analysis
Weichao Yu a, b, Weihe Huang c, Yunhao Wen b, Yichen Li a, Hongfei Liu d, Kai Wen a,
Jing Gong a, *, Yanan Lu e
a
National Engineering Laboratory for Pipeline Safety/ MOE Key Laboratory of Petroleum Engineering/ Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Oil and Gas Distribution
Technology, China University of Petroleum -Beijing, Changping, Beijing 102249, China
b
China Petroleum Planning & Engineering Institute, Beijing 10083, China
c
China National Petroleum Corporation/ PetroChina Company Limited, Beijing 100007, China
d
China National Aviation Fuel International Holdings Limited, Beijing 100029, China
e
East Branch, Natural Gas Marketing Company, China National Petroleum Corporation, Shanghai, 200120, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The fluctuation characteristics of the gas demand and the effect of the user importance are usually ignored in
Natural gas pipeline network previous gas supply reliability research. With the intent of overcoming these deficiencies, an integrated method
Gas supply reliability based on the demand-side analysis is proposed in this study to assess the gas supply reliability of the large-scale
Demand-side analysis
and complex natural gas pipeline network. The method is composed of the establishment of the indicator system,
User importance
Gas flow allocation method
the demand-side analysis, the estimation of the unit failure probability, and the calculation of the gas supply.
Among them, the demand-side analysis focuses on the market demand forecasting and user importance research.
Moreover, the coupling effect of the user importance, the hydraulic and pressure constraints, and the unit failure
on the gas supply calculation is considered. Furthermore, a real natural gas pipeline network located in China is
applied to confirm the feasibility of the method. According to the evaluation results of the gas supply reliability,
the weakest nodes and key links of the natural gas pipeline network are identified, and the suggestions to
improve the gas supply reliability are proposed as well. At last, the significance of the demand side in the gas
supply reliability is elaborated and validated.

1. Introduction The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines

1.1. Background
Natural gas, a fossil fuel associated with relatively low carbon
emission, has now become a larger part of China’s energy usage over the
last decade [1–4]. According to the Opinions on Accelerating the Use of
Natural Gas by the National Development and Reform Commission of the
People’s Republic of China, China plans to increase its share in the gross
energy consumption to 10% and 15% by the year of 2020 and 2030,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. The critical role of the natural gas in the
energy market highlights the importance of the reliable and safe oper­
ation of the natural gas pipeline network (NGPN), which is the key
infrastructure to ensure the demand of the natural gas market [5,6].
Consequently, the reliability of the NGPN is directly related to the nat­
ural gas supply security [7–9].
reliability as “the ability of an item to perform a required function, under
given environmental and operating conditions and for a stated period of
time”. According to the different definitions of the required functions,
the reliability of the NGPN is divided into three aspects, namely the
mechanical reliability, the hydraulic reliability, and the gas supply
reliability [10]. Among them, the gas supply reliability refers to the
ability of the NGPN to meet the market demand, and the research of the
gas supply reliability of the NGPN is the focus of this study. It should be
noted that the NGPN is composed with midstream natural gas trans­
mission pipeline system and its supporting facilities such as the under­
ground gas storage (UGS) and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal.
According to the definition of gas supply reliability, the gas supply
reliability of the NGPN is determined by the gas supply and the market
demand simultaneously [11]. Therefore, demand-side analysis, which
can be used to predict the market demand and determine the gas supply

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ydgj@cup.edu.cn (J. Gong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107651
Received 7 July 2020; Received in revised form 24 December 2020; Accepted 25 March 2021
Available online 31 March 2021
0951-8320/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 1. Natural gas consumption and its share of primary energy consumption in China.

strategy under accident conditions, is the key to evaluating the gas uncertainties of the gas supply capacity and market demand were taken
supply reliability. More specifically, in terms of the market demand, into account. In Ref. [17], the supply reliability of the combined GB gas
each demand node of the NGPN contains multiple types of users, and the and electricity network was assessed by combining the sequential Monte
demand of various types of users is subject to random fluctuation due to Carlo model and the linear programming model, and the gas supply
many factors. The demand-side analysis can identify the influence fac­ uncertainties, gas and electricity demand fluctuations, and the unit
tors of various types of users, and use the corresponding methods to random failure were considered. In Ref. [18], by using the linear pro­
predict the gas demand. Therefore, it is necessary to forecast the demand gramming, the gas supply reliability of the NGPN was calculated, and
of the natural gas based on the demand-side analysis. For gas supply the uncertainty of the gas demand and the weight factor of the users
calculation, the gas supply strategy under accident conditions is deter­ were considered. However, the effect of the random failure was ignored.
mined by the user importance, which also comes from the results of In terms of assessing the adequacy of the NGPN, the models named
demand-side analysis. MC_GENERCIS and GEMFLOW were proposed to assess the adequacy of
the European gas transmission system in Refs. [19,20], and the optimal
distribution of the gas flows of a supply disruption could be found by
1.2. Related work
linear programming model. Moreover, the GEMFLOW model was
applied to evaluate the progress being made to strengthen the security of
Although the demand side has a significant impact on the evaluation
the gas supply at European level between the year of 2009 and 2014
of the gas supply reliability, most of the existing studies ignored the
[21]. Also using the linear programming model, the impacts of the Nord
effect of the demand side when predicting the market demand and
Stream pipeline [22] as well as the Nabucco and South Stream Projects
calculating the gas supplied by the NGPN, which make the results of the
[23] on the European Gas Transmission System were evaluated. Simi­
gas supply reliability inconsistent with the actual situation. To present
larity, the impact of the loss of the Ukraine transit capacity on gas supply
the state-of-the art and knowledge gaps of the research with strong
from Russia to Europe under two demand scenarios was investigated by
relevance to the topic of the paper, an updated and complete literature is
a linear programming model in Ref. [24], and how a natural gas supply
conducted.
interruption from Algeria affects the European natural gas security was
At present, most scholars at home and abroad use the optimization
studied in Ref. [25]. In Ref. [26] the gas supply capacity of the UK gas
method and the hydraulic simulation of NGPN to calculate the gas
transmission network under the impact of compressor failures was
supply of the NGPN when evaluating gas supply reliability. For opti­
calculated by the linear programming model.
mization method, which includes the maximum flow algorithm in graph
However, the above research has the following two shortcomings: 1)
theory and the linear programming, the NGPN is regarded as a directed
These methods regard each demand node as the priority of equal weight
weighted graph, and the upper and lower limits of the gas transmission
during the evaluation cycle, which ignores the influence of the user
capacity of each pipeline, the gas source, and the gas demand as well as
importance; 2) The hydraulic and pressure constraints of the NGPN are
the node flow balance constraint are all considered. Moreover, by
not considered.
incorporating the influence of the unit failure on the gas supply trans­
For the hydraulic simulation, the commercial natural gas pipeline
mission capacity and using the sophisticated optimization algorithm, the
simulation software or the numerical simulation are adopted to calcu­
amount of the gas supplied by the NGPN can be calculated.
late the amount of the gas supplied by the NGPN under the accident
For example, in Ref. [12,13], a probabilistic model combining the
conditions. For example, the Stoner Pipeline Simulator (SPS) was used in
maximum flow algorithm was developed to assess the gas supply reli­
Ref. [10,27–31] to analyze the change law of the flow rate when the
ability of a NGPN, and the distance-based commodity supply pattern and
NGPN transits to the failure states. Moreover, the numerical simulation,
fixed gas demand were employed in the probabilistic model. Also using
which includes steady state hydraulic simulation model and transient
the maximum flow algorithm, an integrated methodology to calculate
hydraulic simulation model, was used in Refs. [32–35]. Similar to the
the gas supply reliability of the NGPN was proposed in Refs. [14,15],
optimization method, the hydraulic simulation also regards the demand
and the uncertainty of the gas supply capacity of the NGPN caused by the
nodes period as equal weight during the evaluation, and the calculation
random failures of the units are considered. In Ref. [16], a method to
results of the gas supply also ignore the influence of the demand side.
assess the hydraulic reliability and gas supply reliability of the NGPN
was proposed based on the maximum flow algorithm, and the

2
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 2. The flowchart of the gas supply reliability assessment.

1.3. Contributions of this work
While extensive research has been carried out to assess the gas supply
reliability of the NGPN; however, most of the studies fail to recognize
the importance of the demand side, and the fluctuation characteristics of
the gas demand and the effect of the user importance are usually ignored
in the previous gas supply reliability research. To address these issues,
an integrated methodology to evaluate the gas supply reliability of the
NGPN based on the demand-side analysis is developed in this study, and
the coupling effect of the user importance, the hydraulic and pressure
constraints, and the random unit failure on the gas supply calculation of
the NGPN is considered. Therefore, the innovative contributions of the
work are listed in detail as follows.
1) An integrated method of the gas supply reliability evaluation based
on demand-side analysis is proposed.
2) The coupling effect of the user importance, the hydraulic and pres­
sure constraints, and the unit failure on the gas supply calculation of
the NGPN is considered.
2. Methodology
In the methodology, the indicators of the gas supply reliability are
proposed firstly (Section 2.1). Thereafter, the demand-side analysis is
implemented, and the gas demand and user importance of each demand
node are forecasted and identified (Section 2.2). Afterwards, the failure
probabilities of the pipeline segment and compressor stations are esti­
mated (Section 2.3), which is used in the gas supply calculation. Finally,
the sequential Monte Carlo method is employed to simulate the state
transition process, and a gas flow allocation method under normal and
accident condition is proposed to calculate the gas supply under
different operating states (Section 2.4). In the gas flow allocation
method, the mixed integer linear programming (MILP) is adopted, and
the coupling effect of the user importance, the hydraulic and pressure
constraints, and the unit failure on the gas supply calculation of the
NGPN is considered.
2.1. Establishment of the indicator system
An objective and comprehensive reliability indicator system is the
fundamental to quantify the gas supply reliability of the NGPN. In this
study, the gas supply reliability can be evaluated from the quantity and
time perspectives.
From the quantity perspective, the indicators include the expected
natural gas not supplied (EGNS) and the expected ratio of the natural gas
not supplied (ERNS). From the time perspectives, the indicators include
the loss of demand expectation (LODE) and the expectation of the loss of
demand probability (LODP).
EGNS is defined as the expected amount of the unsatisfied gas de­
mand within the mission time. ERNS is defined as the expected ratio of
the unsatisfied gas demand to total gas demand volume within the
mission time. LODE is defined as the expected value of the time that the
system cannot meet the demand within the mission time. LODP is
defined as the probability that the system cannot meet the demand
within the mission time. The formulas (1 -4)Eqn 1, 2, 3 and 4 are shown
as follows.

3
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Table 1. Therefore, for each demand node in the NGPN which contains
The scope of the application for each prediction model. multiple types of users, the historical demand data of each type of users
Model Scope of the application is analyzed firstly to identity its fluctuation characteristics. Moreover,
the corresponding prediction method is selected to predict the gas de­
Time series analysis The user with small fluctuations in gas consumption.
BP neural network The user with moderate fluctuations in gas consumption, and mand of each type of users, so as to obtain the gas demand of each de­
the law of the demand is not clear. mand node.
Support vector The user with moderate fluctuations in gas consumption, and
machine the law of the demand is clear. (1) Priority of the demand node
Logistical regression The user with large fluctuations in gas consumption.
model
In the occurrence of the gas supply shortages or surge in demand, the
gas supply strategy will be adjusted by reducing the gas supply of the
∑N ∫ T
Dij (t) − Xji (t)dt demand node with low priority. The priority of the demand node is
(1)
j=1 0
determined by the user importance of each demand node, which comes
i
EGNS =
N
from the results of the user classification.
∫T
∑N Dij (t)− Xji (t)dt In this study, the purpose of the natural gas consumption is used as
∫T
the basis for the user classification. Therefore, the urban gas distributor,
0
j=1
Dij (t)
ERNSi = 0
(2) CNG station, power plant, and industrial customer are four levels from
N
the highest to the lowest. The four levels are 1) Demand Fully Satisfied,
∑N ∫ T
Cji (t)dt 2) Demand Slightly Reduced, 3) Demand Reduced, and 4) Demand
(3)
j=1 0
LODEi = Interrupted. Therefore, the formulas of the calculating the priority of the
N
demand node can be obtained as followsEqn 5 and 6.
∫T
∑N Cji (t)dt
0
Pir (t) = φ1 ⋅Di1 (t) + φ2 ⋅Di2 (t) + φ3 ⋅Di3 (t) + φ4 ⋅Di4 (t) (5)
(4)
i j=1 T
LODP =
N
Di (t) = Di1 (t) + Di2 (t) + Di3 (t) + Di4 (t) (6)
i i i i th
where EGNS , ERNS , LODE , and LODP are the indicators of the i de­
mand node during the mission time T; j represents the jth Monte Carlo Where Pir (t) represent the priority of the ith demand node on the tth
trial; N is the total number of Monte Carlo trials, which is applied to day, 104 Nm3; Di1 (t), Di2 (t), Di3 (t), Di4 (t) are the demand of the urban gas
calculate the expected value of the reliability indicators; Ci (t) is the distributor, CNG station, power plant, and industrial customer on the tth
degree to which the NGPN cannot meet the demand of the ith demand day, respectively, Nm3; φ1 , φ2 , φ3 , φ4 are the weight of each type of the
1, Xi (t) < Di (t) i users. Obviously, the user with higher level indicates higher user
node on the tth day, andCi (t) = { ; X (t) and Di (t) are the importance and greater weight.
0, else
gas supply and gas demand of the i demand node on the tth day,
th
∫T 2.3. Estimation of the unit failure rate
respectively. By discretizing time at intervals of 1 day, the integral 0 in
∑T
the Eqs. (1–4) can be transformed into summation t=0 , and t = 0, 1, 2, (1) Natural gas pipeline
…, T, and t = 0 means the initial moment.
Based on the developed indicator system, the flowchart of gas supply Classical methods for calculating the failure rate of the natural gas
reliability assessment is shown in Fig. 2 and the corresponding pipeline include the failure-mechanism-based method [42–46] and the
approach’s methodological steps are illustrated in the following sec­ historical-data-based method [47,48]. For failure-mechanism-based
tions. According to Fig. 2, we can know that the user importance is method, the limit state functions for the small leak and burst due to
adopted in the process of the gas supply calculation under normal and the major failure causes are firstly developed. The major failure causes
accident conditions. include equipment impact, construction defects, corrosion, ground
movement and others. The reliability algorithms such as Monte Carlo
2.2. Demand-side analysis simulation are then used to calculate the failure probability for each
failure cause. Finally, the total failure probability is obtained by sum­
(1) Market demand predicting ming the failure probabilities of different failure causes [49]. As for
historical-data-based method, the failure probabilities are obtained from
From the above, the prediction of the market demand performs the historical failure data of the calculated pipeline.
essential functions in the gas supply reliability assessment. Generally, It should be noted that the above methods can obtain accurate
natural gas has been widely used in such application as urban gas dis­ calculation results of the natural gas pipeline reliability, however the
tributors, CNG (compressed natural gas) stations, power plants, and data requirements are also very large, especially the operating data, in-
industrial customers, and different types of users have different fluctu­ line inspection data, and historical failure data, which limits their
ation characteristics. It is necessary to adopt appropriate prediction practical application [45,50]. Therefore, an approximate method, which
models for different types of users [36,37]. Through the investigation of can calculate the failure rate of the pipeline by computing the target
the prediction literature, time series method [38], BP neural network reliability in the design stage, is adopted in this study [51]. The target
[39], support vector machine [40], and logistical regression model [41] reliability of the pipeline mainly considers the safety impact on the
are selected as the four methods of the gas demand prediction in this surrounding environment and personnel after the extreme limit state of
study, and the applicable scope of each method is shown in Table 1. the pipeline fails (large pipeline leakage, rupture, etc.)[49].The target

4
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 3. The Go chart of the compressor station with three running compressor units and one standby in the case NGPN.

Table 2. Table 3.
The transition rate (1/h) of the compressor station. The meaning of the marks in Fig. 3 and the failure rate and average maintenance
State 0 State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4
time of the units in the compressor station.
Mark Meaning Failure rate Average maintenance
State 0 – 1.83E-4 – – –
/h− 1 time /h
State 1 8.02E-2 – 1.83E-4 – –
State 2 – 8.02E-2 – 1.22E-4 – 5–1 Virtual input 0 –
State 3 – – 8.02E-2 – 6.43E-5 1–2, 1–33 Manifold 6.00e-7 6
State 4 – – – 8.22E-2 – 1–3 Ground 1.11e-8 6
pipeline
1–4 Buried pipeline 3.75e-7 8
reliability calculation formula Eqn 7of the extreme limit state of the 5–5, 5–12, 5–19, Power source 5.71e-9 6
pipeline in China is [52]: 5–26
6–6, 6–13, 6–20, Electric valve 4.13e-5 12
⎧ 775 6–27
⎪
⎪ 1− ( )0.63 , ρ=0 1–7, 1–14, 1–21, Filter 8.83e-6 6
⎪
⎪ PD3
⎪
⎪ 1–28
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 9.96 5–8, 5–15, 5–22, Gas turbine 6.24e-6 24
RT = 1 − ( )0.59 , ρPD3 ≤ 4.7 × 109 (7) 5–29
⎪
⎪ ρPD3 6–9, 6–16, 6–23, Compressor 5.54e-7 24
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 6–30
⎪
⎪ 9.3 × 1010
⎪
⎩1 − ( )1.65 ,
3
ρPD > 4.7 × 10 9
1–10, 1–17, 1–24, Check valve 2.62e-6 12
ρPD3 1–31
1–11 1–18 1–25 Manual ball 1.51e-6 12
where RT is the target reliability, 1/km/year; ρ is the population density, 1–32 valve
1–34 Air cooler 1.62e-6 6
1/hectare; P is the design pressure, MPa; D is the pipeline diameter, mm.
For simplicity, the time at which the failure transition occurs and the
duration of the corrective maintenance are assumed to be exponentially In this study, the natural gas compressor station is simplified into a
distributed. Therefore, according to the obtained target reliability, the pressurizing system composed of multiple compressor units, and the Go
failure rate of the pipeline can be calculated as followsEqn 8. methodology [53,54] is employed to calculate the failure probability of
− lnRT the compressor stations. The Go chart is established firstly based on the
1 − e− λt
= Pf = 1 − RT ⇒λ = (8) process flow of the pressurizing subsystem. The compressor station with
t
three running compressor units and one standby in the case NGPN is
Where λ is the failure rate of the pipeline, 1/km/year, t is the time applied to describe the Go methodology, and the Go chart is shown in
and equals to 1 year. Fig. 3. The means of the marks of Fig. 3 are listed in Table 3, and then the
failure rate and average maintenance time of the units in the compressor
(1) Natural gas compressor station station are collected, which also shown in Table 3.

5
W. Yu et al.
Fig. 4. Schematic of the state transition process (t , k = m)→(t, k = n).
′
Two constraints should be considered in the calculation of the
compressor station reliability. Constraint 1: when the number of failure
units in the system is larger than the number of units that are allowed to
be repaired at the same time, the extra failure units can only be repaired
after the other units are repaired. Constraint 2: when the redundant
unit is in the standby state, it is assumed that it does not fail.
Thirdly, the set of all possible states of the compressor station is
determined. The compressor station has five possible states, namely
State 0 (all compressors are in normal operation), State 1 (a compressor
unit is not operating normally), State 2 (two compressor units are not
operating normally), State 3 (three compressor units are not operating
normally) and State 4 (the system is not operational).
Finally, transition rates of the compressor station from State 0 to
State 1, State 1 to State 0, State 1 to State 2, State 2 to State 1, State 2 to
State 3, State 3 to State 2, State 3 to State 4, and State 4 to State 3 are
calculated based on the system reliability theory [55]. The calculation
results of the transition rate of the compressor stations are listed in
Table 2.
In the Table, the row represents the state before the state transit, and
the column represents the state after the transit. For example, the
number in the first row and the second column (1.83E-4) represents the
transition rate of the compressor station from State 0 to State 1.
2.4. Calculation of the gas supply of each demand node
Because of the stochastic failures of the units, the system’s operating
state is uncertain, which leads to the amount of gas supplied by the
NGPN being stochastic over the mission time. Therefore, the de­
scriptions of the state transition process and the gas flow allocation
method under different conditions are the keys to calculate the gas
supply.
(1) State transition process simulation
In order to consider the chronologic characteristic of system state
transition of the NGPN, the sequential Monte Carlo method is utilized in
this section to simulate the state transition process [56].
Generally, let k denote the index that identifies operating states of
the NGPN. When the generic transition occurs at time t with the system
entering the state k = n, the probabilistic transport kernel K(t,k = n|t ,k
′
= m), which governs the occurrence of the next system transition at time
t with the system entering state k = m, is given as followsEqn 9. The
′
schematic of the state transition process is shown in Fig. 4:
(9)
′ ′
K(t, k = n|t , k = m) = T(t|t , k = m)⋅C(k = n|t, k = m)
where T(t|t , k = m) is the conditional probability density that the sys­
′
tem makes in the next transition between t and t + dt, when the previous
transition had occurred at time t , and the system has entered in the state
′
∫∞
k = m, and t′ T(t|t , k = m)dt ≤ 1; C(k = n|t, k = m) is the conditional
′
probability when the system enters in the state k = n as an effect of the
6
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651
transition occurring at time t with the system originally in the state k =
∑
m, and C(k = n|t,k = m) = 1, Ω is the set of all possible states of the
n∈Ω
system.
The simulation consists of sampling the time ti of the next transition
that occurs from the corresponding conditional probability density
T(ti |ti− 1 , k = xi− 1 ) and the arrival state k=xi from the conditional prob­
ability C(k = xi |ti ,k = xi− 1 ). The process then repeats from k=xi at time ti
to the next transition until the time reaches the mission time, T.
According to the simulation results of the state transition process, the
random state transition sequence Γ shown in Eq. (10) during the mission
time T can be obtained. Moreover, the moment of the state transition,
the arrival operating state, and their duration, are all determined, which
can be used in the gas supply calculation.
Γ = {(x0 , t0 ), (x1 , t1 ), …, (xm , tm ), (t0 + T)} (10)
where (xi,ti) indicates that the ith state transition occurs at time ti, and the
system enters in state xi, (x0,t0) is the initial system state and starting
time, and T is the mission time.
(1) Gas flow allocation method under normal and accident condition
In this method, a directed weighted graph G = (V, E) consisting of a
set of nodes V and a set of edge E is adopted to describe the NGPN.
Moreover, a virtual source node s connecting to each source node and a
virtual sink node d connected by each demand node with infinite ca­
pacity on each edge are added in the directed weighted graph. The
problem of calculating the gas supply of each demand node is trans­
formed into an optimization problem. Moreover, the coupling effect of
the user importance, the hydraulic and pressure constraints, and the unit
failure on the gas supply calculation of the NGPN is considered in the
process of the gas supply calculation. The details of the model are pre­
sented as follows.
Objective function:
∑
T ∑
max Pir (t)⋅xid (t) (11)
t=1 i∈D
where D is the set of the demand nodes; Xi (t) and Pr i (t) are the amount of
gas supplied to the ith demand node by the NGPN and the user impor­
tance of the ith demand node on the tth day, respectively.
Constraints:
1) Flow constraints
A. The sum of the flows entering a node must equal to the sum of the
flows exiting a node:
∑ ∑
xij (t) − xjl (t) = 0 ∀i, j ∈ V (12)
(i,j)∈E (j,l)∈E
where, xij(t) is the amount of the gas from node i to node j on the jth day,
104 Nm3/day;(i, j) and (j, l) represents the pipeline from node i to node j
and the pipeline from node j to node l, respectively.
Table 4.
The effect of failure of each component on the capacity Cij.
Component Effect of the capacity Cij
Transmission Reduction of the pipeline capacity
pipeline
Compressor station Reduction of the surrounding pipeline capacity
Natural gas field The capacity of the pipeline connected to natural gas field is
reduced to zero
UGS The capacity of the pipeline connected to UGS is reduced to
zero
LNG terminal The capacity of the pipeline connected to LNG terminal is
reduced to zero
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 5. The schematic of the case NGPN.

Table 5. Table 7.
The properties of the supply nodes. The transition rate (1/h) of the compressor station with one running compressor
units and one standby.
Node Capacity(104 m3/day)
State 0 State 1 State 2
2 20,335.71
11 22.57 State 0 – 6.11E-5 –
30 700.00 State 1 8.02E-2 – 6.43E-5
47 0.00 State 2 – 8.22E-2 –
63 3500.00
64 0.00
82 0.00 where xsj(t) and xid(t) are the amount of gas from the virtual source node
89 2286.00
s to source node j and the amount of gas from demand node i to the
132 1571.14
133 2000.00 virtual sink node d at the tth day, respectively, 104 Nm3/day.
Total flow constraint:
∑
B. Only one flow can exist in the pipeline: xid (t) = Qmax (t) (16)
i∈D
yij (t) + yji (t) ≤ 1 ∀(i, j) ∈ Eb (13)
where, Qmax(t) is the maximum amount of natural gas supplied by the
yij (t) ∈ {0, 1} ∀(i, j) ∈ Eb (14) NGPN to each demand node at the tth moment under the given con­
straints, which can be calculated in the first stage optimization.
where Eb is the set of the bi-directional pipelines, yij(t) is the binary D. The gas flow supply from the gas source node is not greater than
decision variable for controlling flow direction of the bi-directional the upper limit of the gas source capacity, and the gas flow supply to the
pipeline. demand node is not greater than the its demand. The flow of a pipeline
C. The sum of the gas supply from the gas source nodes equals to the cannot exceed its transmission capacity and is non-negative (in this
sum of the gas supply to the demand nodes: study, the gas source capacity, gas demand, and pipeline transmission
∑ ∑ capacity are uniformly represented by the capacity matrix C):
xsj (t) = xid (t) (15)
j∈S i∈D xij (t) ≤ yij (t)Cij (t) ∀(i, j) ∈ Eb (17)

xij (t) ≤ Cij (t) ∀(i, j) ∈ E − Eb (18)

Table 6.
The configuration of the compressor stations. Table 8.
The transition rate (1/h) of the compressor station with two running compressor
Node Configuration Description
units and one standby.
3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 1+1 One running compressor unit and one
State 0 State 1 State 2 State 3
19 stand-by unit
4, 74, 79, 90, 93 2+1 Two running compressor unit and one State 0 – 1.22E-4 – –
stand-by unit State 1 8.02E-2 – 1.22E-4 –
66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 3+1 Three running compressor unit and one State 2 – 8.02E-2 – 6.43E-5
76, 85 stand-by unit State 3 – – 8.22E-2 –

7
W. Yu et al.
Fig. 6. The evaluation results of the gas supply reliability of the case NGPN.
where Cij(t) is the transmission capacity of the pipeline (i, j) on the ith
day, 104 Nm3/day, which is an element of the capacity matrix. More
specifically, Csj and Cid are the gas source capacity and the gas demand,
respectively, where s is the virtual source node, j is the source node, i is
the demand node, and d is the virtual sink node.
1) Pressure constraint:
A. Pressure constraints at each node of the NGPN:
Pi,min ≤ Pi ≤ Pi,max (19)
where, Pi is the pressure of the ith node, MPa, Pi,min and Pi,max are the
upper limit and lower limit of the pressure at the ith node, respectively,
MPa.
It should be pointed that the upstream and downstream nodes of the
compressor station and the regulating valve not only need to meet the
node pressure constraints shown in Eq. (19), but also need to meet their
8
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651
upstream and downstream pressure constraints.
B. Compressor station upstream and downstream pressure
constraints:
Pci , lower ≤ Pci ,1 ≤ Pci ,2 ≤ Pci , upper (20)
wherePci ,1 , Pci ,2 , Pci , lower , Pci , upper are the upstream pressure, downstream
pressure, upstream pressure limit, and downstream pressure limit of the
ith compressor station, respectively, MPa.
C. Upstream and downstream pressure constraints of the regulating
valve (used for interface pressure regulation of pipeline with different
pressure levels):
Pri ,1 ≥ Pri ,2 (21)
Pri , lower ≤ Pri ,2 ≤ Pri , upper (22)
wherePri ,1 , Pri ,2 , Pri , lower , Pri , upper are the upstream pressure, downstream
pressure, upstream pressure limit, and downstream pressure limit of the
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 6. (continued).

ith regulating valve, respectively, MPa.

Table 9. 3) Hydraulic constraint:
The demand and transmission of the Node 14, Node 20, Node 39, and Node 52. ( ( )) ( ( ))
λZΔ∗ TL 2
Demand Transmission The The The increased yij p2i (t) − p2j t = yij x
2 5 ij
t ∀(i, j) ∈ Eb (23)
C0 D
node pipeline maximum transmission transmission
demand capacity capacity ( ()
(104m3/day) (104m3/day) (104m3/day) λZΔ∗ TL 2
p2i (t) − p2j t) = xij t ∀(i, j) ∈ E − Eb (24)
C0 2 D 5
14 (13, 14) 83.29 43.6 84
20 (19, 20) 412.79 361 413
39 (38, 39) 299.82 285.71 300 where pi(t) and pj(t) are the pressure of the ith and jth nodes at tth day,
52 (51, 52) 141.84 125.71 142 respectively, MPa, λ is the hydraulic friction coefficient, Z is the
compressibility factor of natural gas under transmission conditions, ∆* is

9
W. Yu et al.
Fig. 7. The results of the gas supply reliability improvement.
the relative density of natural gas, T is gas transmission temperature, K,
L is the calculation section length of gas pipeline, km, D is the inner
diameter of the transmission pipeline, m, C0 is constant, and its value
depends on the unit of each parameter. The above parameters are the
parameters of the pipeline between node i and node j.
It should be noted that the hydraulic constraints of the pipe network
are nonlinear constraints and contain many unknowns. To simplify the
constraints and facilitate the solution of the model, this paper treats the
hydraulic constraints piecewise linearly [57,58].
Decision variables: xij (t) is the flow rate in the arc (i, j) ∈ E at the tth
day; yij is the binary decision variable for controlling flow direction of
the bi-directional arcs.
The mixed integer linear programming is employed to solve the
optimization problem. Finally, the calculated flow rate is the one that
10
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651
system can supply natural gas to the consumers considering the coupling
effect of the user importance, the hydraulic and pressure constraints,
and the unit failure. In this study, the above gas supply calculation
model is called as the hydraulic-pressure model to distinguish from the
max-flow model.
It is worthy noted that the Cij(t) on the tth day is a random variable
because of the random failure of the pipeline segment and compressor
stations. Furthermore, the effect of failure of different components on
the capacity matrix Cij is different significantly, which can be deter­
mined by using the thermal-hydraulic simulation [59], and the details
are listed in Table 4. In the occurrence of the simultaneous failures of
multiple components, the constraints related to the failed components
are updated simultaneously.
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 7. (continued).

3. Application of the proposed methodology

Table 10.
The key link of the NGPN on the 30th June in the year of 2021. 3.1. Description of the test NGPN
Rank Pipeline or node Gas supply loss (104 m3)

1 Supply Node 2 7244.45

To confirm the feasibility of the developed method, the gas supply
2 Pipeline (15, 16) 3049.60 reliability of a real NGPN located in China is evaluated. The presented
3 Pipeline (16, 17) 2960.13 supply and demand datasets are realistic; however, its geographical
4 Pipeline (17, 18) 2828.55 topology is not disclosed for sensitivity reasons. A directed graph is
5 Pipeline (5, 6) 2702.83
adopted to describe the case NGPN, as shown in Fig. 5. The network
6 Pipeline (6, 7) 2700.27
7 Pipeline (7, 8) 2700.27 contains the following elements: 138 pipelines, 20 compressor stations
8 Pipeline (8, 9) 2699.76 (denoted by red nodes), and 10 gas sources (denoted by green nodes).
9 Pipeline (18, 19) 2694.28 Among them, node 63 and node 30 represent the LNG terminal and UGS,
10 Pipeline (10, 12) 2651.58
respectively.
To avoid a lengthy article, both the properties of the transmission

11
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 8. The gas flow allocation when Supply Node 2 fails.

Fig. 9. The gas flow allocation when Pipeline (15, 16) fails.

Fig. 10. The gas flow allocation when Pipeline (16, 17) fails.

12
W. Yu et al.
Fig. 11. Gas supply reliability considering and ignoring the demand side effect.
pipeline, and the information of the demand nodes are summarized in
the Supplementary Material. The market demand forecast does not
consider the external factors, such as the impact of the COVID-19. The
properties of the supply nodes and the configuration of the compressor
stations are listed in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
3.2. Unit reliability calculation results
Currently, only the complete damage is considered for the natural
gas pipeline and compressor unit. Therefore, natural gas pipeline can be
under the failure state and normal state. Moreover, the failure rate and
repair rate of each pipeline are summarized in Supplementary
13
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651
Material. For compressor stations, the number of its operating states
depends on the configuration of compressor station. Furthermore, the
failure rate and average maintenance time of the units in the compressor
station reported in Ref. [54] are used in this section. According to the Go
methodology, the transition rate of the three different type compressor
stations can be obtained, and the results are listed in Tables 7, 8, and 2.
In the table, State 0 means that all compressors are in normal oper­
ation; State 1 indicates that there is a compressor unit that is not oper­
ating normally; State 2 means the system is not operational.
In the table, State 0 means that all compressors are in normal oper­
ation; State 1 indicates that there is a compressor unit that is not oper­
ating normally; State 2 indicates that there is two compressor units that
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 12. The average user importance of each demand node.

Fig. 13. The difference of the total amounts of natural gas calculated by the hydraulic-pressure model and max-flow model.

are not operating normally; State 3 means the system is not operational.
3.3. Evaluation results of the gas supply reliability
Based on the established gas supply reliability evaluation method,
the gas supply reliability of the case NGPN in the evaluation period is
calculated. The evaluation period is from the 1st January to the 1st July
in the year of 2021. The predicted demand of each demand node is listed
in the Supplementary Material. The weight of each type of users is
chosen as 1, 0.8, 0.5, 0.1, and the total number of Monte Carlo trials is
100,000. The evaluation results of the gas supply reliability are shown in
Fig. 6.
According to the evaluation results, the Node 14, Node 20, Node 39,
and Node 52 are identified as the weakest nodes in the case NGPN. The
first reason is that the maximum demand of the Node 14, Node 20, Node
39, and Node 52 is greater than the pipeline gas transmission capacity of
the Pipeline (13,14), (19,20), (38,39) and (51,52), as shown in Table 9.
The second reason is that these demand nodes are located at the end of
the branch line.
Therefore, the enhanced measure of the gas supply reliability is
increasing the gas transmission capacity. Moreover, the effect of
increasing the pipeline gas transmission capacity on improving the gas
supply reliability is quantified, and the results of the gas supply reli­
ability improvement are shown in Fig. 7.

14
W. Yu et al.
Fig. 14. The difference of the total amounts of natural gas calculated by the hydraulic-pressure model and max-flow model when Node 2 fails.
Table 11.
The failure rate of the pipeline reported in Ref. [28].
Unit Failure rate (1/h/km)
Pipeline segment 1.46E-08
The calculation result shows that the gas supply reliability of Node
14, Node 20, Node 39, and Node 52 are significantly improved when the
pipeline transportation capacity is increased. It is worth noting that due
to the influence of the hydraulic constraints of the NGPN, when the gas
transmission capacity of the pipelines listed in Table 9 is increased, it
may cause insufficient gas supply at some demand nodes with lower user
importance, such as demand Node 67, and 68.
3.4. The key links and the gas flow allocation scheme under accident
condition
The key links of the NGPN and the corresponding flow allocation
scheme under link failure are presented in this section. Firstly, the gas
supply loss caused by each pipeline or compressor stations failure is
calculated to identify the key links of the NGPN. Thereafter, the corre­
sponding gas flow allocation scheme is proposed. It should be pointed
out the key links of the NGPN are changed with the demand conditions.
To avoid a lengthy article, the market demand on the 30th June in the
year of 2021 is chosen in this section.
In Table 10, the top ten pipelines or nodes in criticality are listed, and
the gas flow allocation scheme under the key link failures are investi­
gated. Furthermore, the difference of the gas supply strategy under ac­
cident conditions between considering and ignoring user importance is
compared, which presented in Figs. 8–10. The demand nodes not drawn
in the figures indicate that their demand and supply are equal with each
other.
From Figs. 8–10, the following conclusions can be drawn:
15
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651
The results indicate whether user importance is considered has a
significant impact on the gas supply strategy under accident conditions.
When the gas supply is insufficient, the gas supply strategy considering
the user importance will supply gas to the users with high priority,
which realizes a reasonable distribution of the gas supply. This also
explains why the user importance should be considered in the gas supply
reliability evaluation.
3.5. The impact of the demand side on gas supply reliability
The impact of the demand side on the gas supply reliability is then
investigated, and the gas supply reliability considering and ignoring the
demand side effect is calculated, and the results are shown in Fig. 11.
According Fig. 11, we can know that when considering the impact of
the demand side, the gas supply reliability of the more important de­
mand nodes will be significantly improved (The average user impor­
tance of each demand node is shown in Fig. 12). The reason is that when
a failure event occurs, the NGPN will give priority to the supply of nodes
with higher user importance.
3.6. Impact of the hydraulic and pressure constraints
On normal operation conditions, the total amounts of gas supplied by
the NGPN for each day are calculated by the hydraulic-pressure model
and max-flow model, and the difference between the two models is
shown as follows.
Moreover, taking the failure of Node 2 as example, the difference of
the total amounts of natural gas calculated by the hydraulic-pressure
model and max-flow model is presented in Fig. 14.
Figs. 13–14 indicate that the ignorance of the effect of hydraulic and
pressure constraints when calculating the amount of the gas supplied by
the NGPN will make the results of the gas supply inconsistent with the
actual situation, especially in abnormal conditions.
W. Yu et al.
Fig. 15. The comparison between the gas supply reliability.
3.7. Impact of the failure fate of the pipeline on the gas supply reliability
Because the failure rate of the pipeline is obtained by computing the
target reliability in the design stage, which cannot reflect the unit failure
rate during the operation stage accurately. Therefore, the failure rate of
the pipeline reported in Ref. [28] is adopted to investigate the impact of
the failure rate on the gas supply reliability, which is listed in Table 11.
Moreover, the comparison results are shown in Fig. 15. According to
Fig. 15, we can know that the failure rate of the pipeline has significant
impacts on the gas supply reliability, and the higher failure rate makes
the gas supply reliability decrease. A high unit failure rate will signifi­
cantly reduce the gas supply reliability, but the overall trend is consis­
tent, and the gas supply reliability of demand nodes 14, 20, 39, 52 is still
the lowest.
4. Conclusions and future work
In this paper, an integrated gas supply reliability evaluation method
is proposed to assess the gas supply reliability of the NGPN, and the
16
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651
fluctuation of the demand and user importance are both considered. The
method is composed of four part. The first is the establishment of the
reliability indicator, and two dimensions of the indicators are estab­
lished to quantify the gas supply reliability. The second is the demand
side analysis, the natural gas demand is predicted and the user impor­
tance is identified based on the user characteristics. The third is the unit
failure probability estimation, and the results are used in the calculation
of the gas supply. The last is to calculate the gas supply, and the
sequential Monte Carlo method is employed to simulate the state tran­
sition process. Moreover, the coupling effect of the user importance, the
hydraulic and pressure constraints, and the unit failure on the gas supply
calculation is considered.
A real natural gas pipeline network located in China is employed to
confirm the feasibility of the method. According to the evaluation results
of the gas supply reliability, the weakest nodes and key links in the case
NGPN are identified. Moreover, the reason of the lower reliability of the
four nodes are illustrated, and the suggestions to improve their reli­
ability are proposed and validated. Furthermore, the significance of the
demand side, hydraulic and pressure constraints, and pipeline failure
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

Fig. 15. (continued).

rate in the gas supply reliability is investigated and elaborated. Lu: Software.
Although this research has made some progress compared with the
existing research, then some aspects still need to be studied. For Declaration of Competing Interest
example, the dynamic behavior (also called the effect of line pack) of the
NGPN, the uncertainty of the demand, and the units other than pipelines The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
and stations are ignored. The problem of the longer calculation time of interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the gas supply reliability is also urgently needed to solved. In the future, the work reported in this paper.
this methodology will be supplemented and improved, especially with
respect to describing the NGPN in a more and more realistic way.
Acknowledgment

CRediT authorship contribution statement

The authors acknowledge the support from National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51874323) and National Major Science and
Weichao Yu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data cur­
Technology Project of China (No. 2016ZX05066–005–001).
tion, Writing – original draft. Weihe Huang: Supervision, Investigation,
Resources. Yunhao Wen: Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing –
Supplementary materials
original draft. Yichen Li: Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Hongfei Liu: Writing – review & editing. Kai Wen: Investigation,
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
Writing – review & editing. Jing Gong: Supervision, Resources. Yanan
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ress.2021.107651.

17
W. Yu et al. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 212 (2021) 107651

References [30] Chen Q, Zuo L, Wu C, Bu Y, Huang Y, Chen F, et al. Supply adequacy assessment of
the gas pipeline system based on the Latin hypercube sampling method under
random demand. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2019;71:102965.
[1] Su H, Zio E, Zhang J, Li Z, Wang H, Zhang F, et al. A systematic method for the
[31] Chen Q, Zuo L, Wu C, Bu Y, Lu Y, Huang Y, et al. Short-term supply reliability
analysis of energy supply reliability in complex Integrated Energy Systems
assessment of a gas pipeline system under demand variations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
considering uncertainties of renewable energies, demands and operations. J Clean
2020;202:107004.
Prod 2020;267:122117.
[32] Fan M-W, Gong J, Wu Y, Kong W-H. The gas supply reliability analysis of natural
[2] Sun Z, Li X, Shi J, Yu P, Huang L, Xia J, et al. A semi-analytical model for drainage
gas pipeline network based on simplified topological structure. J Renew Sustain
and desorption area expansion during coal-bed methane production. Fuel 2017;
Energy 2017;9:045503.
204:214–26.
[33] Pambour KA, Cakir Erdener B, Bolado-Lavin R, Dijkema GPJ. SAInt – a novel quasi-
[3] Sun Z, Li X, Shi J, Zhang T, Sun F. Apparent permeability model for real gas
dynamic model for assessing security of supply in coupled gas and electricity
transport through shale gas reservoirs considering water distribution characteristic.
transmission networks. Appl Energy 2017;203:829–57.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 2017;115:1008–19.
[34] Wang P, Yu B, Han D, Sun D, Xiang Y. Fast method for the hydraulic simulation of
[4] Song S, Shi B, Yu W, Ding L, Chen Y, Yu Y, et al. A new methane hydrate
natural gas pipeline networks based on the divide-and-conquer approach. J Nat
decomposition model considering intrinsic kinetics and mass transfer. Chem Eng J
Gas Sci Eng 2018;50:55–63.
2019;361:1264–84.
[35] Sukharev MG, Karasevich AM. Reliability models for gas supply systems. Autom
[5] Lv XF, Lu DY, Liu Y, Zhou SD, Zuo JW, Jin H, et al. Study on methane hydrate
Remote Control 2010;71:1415–24.
formation in gas-water systems with a new compound promoter. RSC Adv 2019;9:
[36] Qiao W, Yang Z, Kang Z, Pan Z. Short-term natural gas consumption prediction
33506–18.
based on Volterra adaptive filter and improved whale optimization algorithm. Eng
[6] Lv X, Li W, Shi B, Zhou S. Study on the blockage mechanism of carbon dioxide
Appl Artif Intell 2020;87:103323.
hydrate slurry and its microscopic particle characteristics. RSC Adv 2018;8:
[37] Qiao W, Moayedi H, Foong LK. Nature-inspired hybrid techniques of IWO, DA, ES,
36959–69.
GA, and ICA, validated through a k-fold validation process predicting monthly
[7] Mingfei L, Xiangdong X, Jian M, Yuheng Z, Luning X, Honglong Z, et al.
natural gas consumption. Energy Build 2020;217:110023.
A reliability evaluation system of complex gas pipeline network system in the
[38] Karabiber OA, Xydis G. Forecasting day-ahead natural gas demand in Denmark.
operation period. Oil Gas Storage Transp 2019;38:738–44.
J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2020;76:103193.
[8] Muwei F, Jing G, Yang W, Wenhui K. Sensitivity analysis on the gas supply
[39] Yu F, Xu X. A short-term load forecasting model of natural gas based on optimized
reliability of Shaanxi-Beijing natural gas pipeline network system. Oil Gas Storage
genetic algorithm and improved BP neural network. Appl Energy 2014;134:
Transp 2018;37:378–84.
102–13.
[9] Huai S, Jinjun Z, Nan Y, Zongjie Z. Research on reliability assessment methods for
[40] Wu Y-H, Shen H. Grey-related least squares support vector machine optimization
large gas pipeline network. Oil Gas Storage Transp 2016;35:7–15.
model and its application in predicting natural gas consumption demand. J Comput
[10] Yu W, Gong J, Song S, Huang W, Li Y, Zhang J, et al. Gas supply reliability analysis
Appl Math 2018;338:212–20.
of a natural gas pipeline system considering the effects of underground gas
[41] Hribar R, Potonik P, Šilc J, Papa G. A comparison of models for forecasting the
storages. Appl Energy 2019;252:113418.
residential natural gas demand of an urban area. Energy 2019;167:511–22.
[11] Su H, Zio E, Zhang J, Chi L, Li X, Zhang Z. A systematic data-driven demand side
[42] Yu W, Zhang J, Wen K, Huang W, Min Y, Li Y, et al. A novel methodology to update
management method for smart natural gas supply systems. Energy Convers Manag
the reliability of the corroding natural gas pipeline by introducing the effects of
2019;185:368–83.
failure data and corrective maintenance. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2019;169:
[12] Praks P, Kopustinskas V, Masera M. Probabilistic modelling of security of supply in
48–56.
gas networks and evaluation of new infrastructure. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2015;144:
[43] Gong C, Zhou W. Importance sampling-based system reliability analysis of
254–64.
corroding pipelines considering multiple failure modes. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2018;
[13] Praks P, Kopustinskas V, Masera M. Monte-Carlo-based reliability and vulnerability
169:199–208.
assessment of a natural gas transmission system due to random network
[44] Witek M. Life cycle estimation of high pressure pipeline based on in-line inspection
component failures. Sustain Resil Infrastruct 2017;2:97–107.
data. Eng Fail Anal 2019;104:247–60.
[14] Su H, Zhang J, Zio E, Yang N, Li X, Zhang Z. An integrated systemic method for
[45] Witek M. Gas transmission pipeline failure probability estimation and defect
supply reliability assessment of natural gas pipeline networks. Appl Energy 2018;
repairs activities based on in-line inspection data. Eng Fail Anal 2016;70:255–72.
209:489–501.
[46] Kai W, Wenwei Z, Jing G, Hengdong L, Zhenyong Z, Boyuan Z. Computation of gas
[15] Su H, Zio E, Zhang J, Li X, Chi L, Fan L, et al. A method for the multi-objective
pipeline reliability. Oil Gas Storage Transp 2014;33:729–33.
optimization of the operation of natural gas pipeline networks considering supply
[47] Lam C, Zhou W. Statistical analyses of incidents on onshore gas transmission
reliability and operation efficiency. Comput Chem Eng 2019;131:106584.
pipelines based on PHMSA database. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 2016;145:29–40.
[16] Yu W, Wen K, Li Y, Huang W, Gong J. A methodology to assess the gas supply
[48] Wang H, Duncan IJ. Likelihood, causes, and consequences of focused leakage and
capacity and gas supply reliability of a natural gas pipeline network system. In:
rupture of U.S. natural gas transmission pipelines. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2014;30:
12th International Pipeline Conference; 2018. V002T07A6.
177–87.
[17] Chaudry M, Wu J, Jenkins N. A sequential Monte Carlo model of the combined GB
[49] Nessim M, Zhou W, Zhou J, Rothwell B. Target reliability levels for design and
gas and electricity network. Energy Policy 2013;62:473–83.
assessment of onshore natural gas pipelines. J Press Vessel Technol 2009;131.
[18] Huang Y, Wu C, Chen Q, Wang L, Zuo L, Zhao Y, et al. A computation model for gas
061701-12.
supply reliability analysis in a gas pipeline network based upon the uncertainty of
[50] Witek M. Validation of in-line inspection data quality and impact on steel pipeline
gas consumption. Nat Gas Ind 2018;38:126–33.
diagnostic intervals. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2018;56:121–33.
[19] Monforti F, Szikszai A. A MonteCarlo approach for assessing the adequacy of the
[51] Zhenyon Z, Yawei Z, Jinyuan Z. Evaluation on strength design coefficients of
European gas transmission system under supply crisis conditions. Energy Policy
domestic natural gas pipelines. Nat Gas Ind 2017;37:116–22.
2010;38:2486–98.
[52] Zhang J, Zhang Z, Yu Z, Wu W, Chen Y. Building a target reliability adaptive to
[20] Szikszai A, Monforti F. GEMFLOW: a time dependent model to assess responses to
china onshore natural gas pipeline. In: 2014 10th International Pipeline
natural gas supply crises. Energy Policy 2011;39:5129–36.
Conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2014. V003T12A5-
[21] Rodríguez-Gómez N, Zaccarelli N, Bolado-Lavín R. European ability to cope with a
VT12A5.
gas crisis. Comparison between 2009 and 2014. Energy Policy 2016;97:461–74.
[53] Zupei S, Jia G, Xiangrui H. A new quantification algorithm for the GO
[22] Lochner S, Bothe D. From Russia with gas: an analysis of the Nord stream pipeline’s
methodology. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2000;67:241–7.
impact on the European gas transmission system with the TIGER-Model. 2007. EWI
[54] Yao A, Huang L, Xu T. Reliability analysis of gas transmission station based on GO
Working Paper;.
methodology. Acta Petrolei Sinica 2016;37:688–94.
[23] Dieckhöner C. Simulating security of supply effects of the Nabucco and south
[55] Rausand M, Høyland A. System reliability theory: models, statistical methods, and
stream projects for the European natural gas market. Energy J 2012;33:153–81.
applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
[24] Olanrewaju OT, Chaudry M, Qadrdan M, Wu J, Jenkins N. Vulnerability
[56] Zhao Y, Tang Y, Li W, Yu J. Composite power system reliability evaluation based
assessment of the European natural gas supply. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Energy 2015;
on enhanced sequential cross-entropy Monte Carlo simulation. IEEE Trans Power
168:5–15.
Syst 2019;34:3891–901.
[25] Flouri M, Karakosta C, Kladouchou C, Psarras J. How does a natural gas supply
[57] Hong B, Li X, Di G, Li Y, Liu X, Chen S, et al. An integrated MILP method for
interruption affect the EU gas security? A Monte Carlo simulation. Renew Sustain
gathering pipeline networks considering hydraulic characteristics. Chem Eng Res
Energy Rev 2015;44:785–96.
Des 2019;152:320–35.
[26] Tran TH, French S, Ashman R, Kent E. Impact of compressor failures on gas
[58] Hong B, Li X, Di G, Song S, Yu W, Chen S, et al. An integrated MILP model for
transmission network capability. Appl Math Model 2018;55:741–57.
optimal planning of multi-period onshore gas field gathering pipeline system.
[27] Yu W, Song S, Li Y, Min Y, Huang W, Wen K, et al. Gas supply reliability assessment
Comput Ind Eng 2020;146:106479.
of natural gas transmission pipeline systems. Energy 2018;162:853–70.
[59] Pambour KA, Bolado-Lavin R, Dijkema GPJ. An integrated transient model for
[28] Yu W, Wen K, Min Y, He L, Huang W, Gong J. A methodology to quantify the gas
simulating the operation of natural gas transport systems. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016;
supply capacity of natural gas transmission pipeline system using reliability theory.
28:672–90.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2018;175:128–41.
[29] Chen F, Wu CC. A novel methodology for forecasting gas supply reliability of
natural gas pipeline systems. Front Energy 2020;14:213–23.

18