energies

Article
An Optimization Method for a Compressor Standby Scheme
Based on Reliability Analysis
Xuejie Li 1 , Yuan Xue 1 , Yuxing Li 1 and Qingshan Feng 1,2, *

1 Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation Safety,
China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266580, China
2 China Oil & Gas Pipeline Network Corporation, Beijing 100013, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The reliability of the compressor system determines the gas supply safety. An important
method to improve the reliability is to set up standby compressors in stations, conducted by the
standby compressor or power. A lack of quantitative assessments of standby compressors often
results in more spare compressors or power than actually needed, which wastes money. In this
study, a reliability-based method is proposed to determine the numbers and positions of the standby
compressors, which can reduce investments, and ensure reliability. Firstly, Monte Carlo method
was used to calculate the compressor outage probability of the whole pipeline, respectively, through
which the initial number of standby compressors was obtained. Further, the standby schemes
were designed, in which the positions of the failed compressors were obtained by the Monte Carlo
simulation. Moreover, the worst situation in which the compressors were shut down was used to
test the standby scheme, calculating the flow reliability, pressure boundary, and total power. Finally,
using the Xin–Yue–Zhe pipeline as a case study, the results indicate that the number of standby
compressors in the improved schemes was reduced by seven and the pipeline reliability reached
96.86%.

Citation: Li, X.; Xue, Y.; Li, Y.; Feng,

Keywords: gas pipeline; compressor system; standby scheme; reliability analysis; Monte Carlo; power
Q. An Optimization Method for a
Compressor Standby Scheme Based
on Reliability Analysis. Energies 2022,
15, 8305. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en15218305
1. Introduction
The economic recession caused by COVID-19 has become inevitable. Reducing invest-
Academic Editor: Alessandro
ments and increasing efficiency will be the main focal points for the design, operation, and
Bianchini
maintenance of natural gas (NG) pipelines for the managers and operators. Moreover, a
Received: 15 August 2022 reliable gas supply should be guaranteed. The compressor system (CS) is the power source
Accepted: 22 August 2022 of the long-distance NG pipeline, of which the operating state determines the pipeline
Published: 7 November 2022 flow and pressure, determining the reliability of the pipeline system. The reliability of the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral CS firstly refers to the operating reliability of a single compressor in a compressor station,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in and then refers to the reliability of the entire CS. Both depend on the compressor outage
published maps and institutional affil- probability, including the failure probability and the scheduled outage probability. For
iations. the whole pipeline system, an important method to improve the reliability is to set up
standby compressor units in the compressor stations, including unit standby and power
standby. The unit standby needs the station to be equipped with standby units, resulting
in increased investment and a large number of idle units [1]. The power standby has a
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. certain amount of surplus on the basis of the designed power demand. When a unit fails to
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. work, the surplus power is applied to restore the flow and pressure of the entire pipeline,
This article is an open access article which means that, under normal conditions, the compressor unit with surplus power will
distributed under the terms and
work in a low load/efficiency state [2]. In addition, for the actual design or operation of
conditions of the Creative Commons
the CS, the way to set up the standby compressors is mainly based on expert experience.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
In order to increase the reliability of the pipeline, the conducted standby compressor plan
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
is often conservative, which means the number or power of standby compressors is more
4.0/).

Energies 2022, 15, 8305. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15218305 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 8305 2 of 16

than needed. The investment in compressor stations accounts for about 20% to 25% of the
total investment in the gas pipeline system, and the investment in compressor accounts for
more than half of the investments in compressor stations. Moreover, the annual operating
costs of the compressor stations account for about 40% to 50% of the total operating costs
of the gas pipeline, of which the power costs of the compressors account for more than
70% [3]. Thereafter, reducing pipeline investments or operating costs without reducing
reliability and safety has become the main focal point of pipeline managers and engineers.
This is also the field of experience in the West–to–East Gas Transmission Project. Therefore,
it is of great significance to design a standby compressor scheme for the CS based on
reliability analyses.
The reliability of a pipeline system is treated as a complex task [4]. The main focus at
present is on the degradation mechanisms [5–11] and structural integrity of the pipe [12–14].
Structural integrity is influenced by loadings, such as corrosion or leakage, defined by
thermal–hydraulic processes. The reliability of energy network systems also depends on
the reliability of the installed equipment and the supply source. Praks et al. [15] presented a
probabilistic model to study the security of the supply source in a gas network. The model
is based on Monte Carlo simulations with graph theory and is implemented in the software
tool ProGasNet. Monforti and Szikszai [16] presented a developed model, MC–GENERCIS,
aimed to assess the robustness of the EU transnational gas transmission system during
both normal and special operating conditions, including high-demand situations and/or
supply shortages. Szikszai and Monforti [17] developed a time-dependent model to assess
responses to NG supply crises based on the Monte Carlo simulations, which were also
discussed by Flouri et al. [18]. Pambour et al. [19] quantified the impact of disruption events
in coupled gas and electricity transmission networks on the security of energy supply by
a model named SAInt. The importance of the hydraulic characteristic was stressed. Fu
estimated the failure probability of gas supply using the central moment method [20] and
data-driven model [21], respectively. Fan et al. [22] developed an evaluation method to
calculate the gas supply reliability of the Shaanxi–Beijing NG pipeline systems. Yu et al. [23]
proposed a novel methodology to assess the gas supply reliability of NG transmission
pipeline systems, considering both gas supply capacity and market demand uncertainties,
which were integrated into a single Monte Carlo simulation. Shaikh et al. [24] evaluated
China’s NG supply security and employed a system-oriented modeling approach, namely,
the ecological network analysis (ENA), to integrate all critical compartments of China’s NG
supply system. Lu et al. [25] applied an ecological network analysis to simulate the NG
supply system in China and systematically measured its overall security level, in which
the network information analysis, structural analysis, and utility analysis were conducted.
These research studies focused on the reliability analyses of the gas supply source or the
relation between the supply and the demand market, neglecting the installed equipment
on the pipelines, which included underground gas storage, liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminals, and compressor stations. Li thought that the safe and efficient operation and
management of large-scale NG pipeline network systems should be carried out with the
objectives of analyzing the reliability indicators, system reliability, unit reliability, reliability
data, and reliability management framework of the pipeline network system. Further,
Su et al. [26] thought that when the supply reliability assessment of NG pipeline networks
was conducted, the failure probabilities of installed equipment should be considered.
Compared with pipelines, compressor stations, LNG terminals, and NG storage [27] are
relatively stable in their operation conditions, which means the failure probabilities can be
obtained from the historical data. In general, some research has been devoted to various
perspectives on the gas transmission network under uncertainty or reliability analyses.
However, the evaluation of the capability of a gas transmission network to withstand the
impact of a compressor outage has not received much attention [28], especially considering
compressor operation styles in stations (i.e., serial, parallel, or both) [29]. A complex and
large-scale gas transmission network in China includes pipelines, compressor stations,
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 3 of 16

regulators, valves, and other components. They experienced challenges in evaluating the
network capability to withstand the impact of the compressor outage [30].
Catchpole presented British Gas Corporation’s experience of gas compressor reliability
growth to date and showed the methods that were used to evaluate operational trends,
indicating the reliability growth of gas turbine-powered compressor units. Petrova et al. [31]
obtained a mathematical model for determining the reliability of the compressor unit based
on the compressor failure mode combined with the control and measurement instruments,
showing a calculation method for the compressor failure rate. Tran et al. [32] put forward an
effective maintenance policy for compressors at the national grid in the United Kingdom to
mitigate the loss of network capability. Woo et al. [33] suggested a reliability methodology to
improve the lifetime of a mechanical system, such as a compressor, which could contribute
to gas supply safety. Gentsch and King [34] contributed to the modeling and supervision of
multi-stage centrifugal compressors coping with real gas processes and steady-to-highly
transient operating conditions. Li et al. [35] proposed a novel ejector-based detection
system for thermodynamic measurements of compressors to promote their reliability. In
the present research studies on the reliability analyses of compressors, the reliability of
the compressor itself is the main focus. To consider the impact of the compressor stations
on the gas transmission network capability, a standby compressor unit is always applied.
Sidney Pereira dos Santos et al. [36] noted that a standby compressor unit was determined
by the reliability of the compressor, and proposed a periodic/unscheduled maintenance
strategy for the Bolivia–Brazil gas pipeline to calculate the reliability of the CS. Chen [37]
believed that in order to ensure the pipeline gas supply, each compressor station should be
equipped with at least one standby unit. Tang discussed the compressor station plans for
the West–East Gas Pipeline. The unit standby and power standby modes were compared,
considering factors such as the operation, unit maintenance, and investment. Though
the impacts of the compressor unit on the gas pipelines were discussed, the quantitative
reliability analysis was little cared about, which led to the fact that the standby plan was
always designed according to the experiences, causing great investments in the compressor
numbers or power.
The main contribution of this study was to design a method to optimize the standby
scheme for the CS based on the reliability analysis. Firstly, the ratio of the actual flow
that withstands the compressor outage to the designed flow was defined as the index to
evaluate the reliability, in which the flow can be calculated by the combined pipeline and
compressor equations after the standby scheme is determined. Then, Monte Carlo method
was used to calculate the compressor outage probability of the whole pipeline, respectively,
through which the initial number of standby compressors was obtained, considering the
gas storage capacity of the pipeline. Further, the standby schemes were designed with the
help of the initial number, in which the positions of the failed compressors were obtained
by the Monte Carlo simulation, to find out the effective standby scheme that could satisfy
the flow and pressure boundary. Moreover, according to the influence of the compressor
outage on the pipeline flow, the worst situation in which the compressors were shut down
was used to test the standby scheme, calculating the flow reliability, pressure boundary, and
total power. Finally, the standby scheme, which has the largest reliability with minimum
power, was determined. The results of the case study indicate that for the Xin–Yue–Zhe
(XYZ) pipeline, which had 20 standby compressors in the original scheme, the number
of standby compressors in the improved schemes was reduced by seven and the pipeline
reliability reached 96.86%.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methods for the standby
compressors based on the reliability analysis, feasibility analysis, and economic analysis,
which are flow boundary, pressure boundary, and power, respectively. Section 3 describes
the details of the XYZ pipeline project, for which the standby scheme was designed and
validated. Finally, the conclusions and future work are provided in Section 4.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

Energies 2022, 15, 8305 4 of 16

2. Methods
2.1. Reliability Index for CS
2. Methods
2.1.1. Definition of Reliability Index
2.1. Reliability Index for CS
For the
2.1.1. compressor,
Definition there areIndex
of Reliability many indices for reliability analyses, such as reliability,
cumulative failure probability, failure rate, average life, etc. [38]. Because the reliability of
For the compressor, there are many indices for reliability analyses, such as reliability,
the CS will influence the reliability of the pipeline system, the gas supply safety will also
cumulative failure probability, failure rate, average life, etc. [38]. Because the reliability of
be influenced [39]. For the gas supply, the commonly used reliability index can be defined
the CS will influence the reliability of the pipeline system, the gas supply safety will also be
as:
influenced [39]. For the gas supply, the commonly used reliability index can be defined as:
q
R= q (1)
R =Q (1)
Q
where R is the reliability index; Q is the designed or planned transportation flow of
where R is the reliability index; Q is the designed or planned transportation flow of the
the pipeline; and q is the flow under the standby plan of the CS, which can be obtained
pipeline; and q is the flow under the standby plan of the CS, which can be obtained by
by solving
solving the
the following
following equation:
equation:
0.51
  0.51
 pQ2 − pZ 2(1 + asZ )
2 2  
  

q = C p ED 2.53

p − p ( 1 + as )   (2)

Z
 Z Δ 0.061TL 1+ a  
2.53 Q Z Z

 2 L aZ( si + si −1 ) li   
q = C p ED (2)

 ∗
∗
0.061
 i −1
2L ∑


 Z∆ TL 1 + i =1 ( s i + s ) li 


i =1
where pZ is the end pressure of the pipeline; pQ is the starting pressure of the pipeline;
is the pheight
sZ where Z is the end pressure
difference of thethe
between pipeline; pQ is
end point thethe
and starting pressure
starting of the
point of pipeline; s Z
the pipeline;
is the height difference between the end point and the starting point of the pipeline; si−1
si −1 and si are the heights of the i segment, of which the length is li ; q is the flow un-
and si are the heights of the i segment, of which the length is li ; q is the flow under standard
derconditions;
standard conditions; C p iscoefficient;
C p is the flow the flow coefficient; E is the coefficient,
E is the efficiency efficiency coefficient, which
which is generally
is generally
0.9~0.95; 0.9~0.95; a is the coefficient
a is the correction correction for
coefficient
the flowfor thewhich
state, flow state, which
equals equalsthe
to 1 when to flow
1
when fallsthe
in flow fallsdeveloped
the fully in the fullyturbulence
developedstate.
turbulence state.

2.1.2.
2.1.2. Pipeline
Pipeline Model
Model
(1) (1)FlowFlow equation.
equation.
TheThe
simplified structure
simplified of the
structure gasgas
of the pipeline network
pipeline is shown
network in Figure
is shown 1. 1.
in Figure

Figure
Figure 1. Gas
1. Gas pipeline.
pipeline.

According to Kirchhoff’s first law [40], the flow balance equation can be written
According to Kirchhoff’s first law [40], the flow balance equation can be written as
as follows:
follows: N
N∑ αij Mij + Qi = 0 (i = 1, 2, . . . , N ) (3)
j=α1 ij M ij + Qi = 0 ( i = 1,2,, N ) (3)
j =1
where Qi is the gas flow into i node; Mij is the absolute flow in the pipeline between i,j
where
nodes, Qi and
is the
Mijgas
= flow
M ji ; αinto i node; M ij is the absolute flow in the pipeline between
ij is the coefficient, when there is no pipe connection at the node,
i , αj ij nodes, andwhen
= 0, and = Mgas
M ij the ji ; α ij is from
flows the coefficient,
i to j, αij =when there is noαpipe
−1, otherwise connection at the
ij = 1.
node, αij = 0 , and when the gas flows from i to j , α ij = −1 , otherwise α ij = 1 .
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 5 of 16

(2) Boundary conditions.

1. Intake/offtake volume constraint.
The intake gas volume of the pipeline depends on the gas supply source, and the
offtake volume should be able to meet the user’s demand. Therefore,

Qin(i)min ≤ Qin(i) ≤ Qin(i)max (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , Nn ) (4)

Qout(i)min ≤ Qout(i) ≤ Qout(i)max (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , Nn ) (5)

where Qin(i) is the intake volume of node i; Qout(i) is the offtake volume; Qin(i)min is the
allowable minimum intake volume; Qin(i)max is the allowable maximum intake volume;
Qout(i)min is the allowable minimum offtake volume; Qout(i)max is the allowable maximum
offtake volume.
2. Intake/offtake pressure constraint.
The intake and offtake pressure of the gas pipeline are constrained by the design
pressure. The maximum pressure should not be larger than the design pressure. In
addition, the minimum intake pressure is affected by the supply source, and the minimum
offtake pressure needs to meet the user’s requirements. Therefore,

Pin(i)min ≤ Pin(i) ≤ Pin(i)max (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , Nn ) (6)

Pout(i)min ≤ Pout(i) ≤ Pout(i)max (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , Nn ) (7)

where Pin(i) is the intake pressure of the node i; Pout(i) is the offtake pressure; Pin(i)min is the
allowable minimum intake pressure; Pin(i)max is the allowable maximum intake pressure;
Pout(i)min is the allowable minimum offtake pressure; Pout(i)max is the allowable maximum
offtake pressure.
(3) Parallel compressor combination model.
Because most of the compressor units in the stations for the long-distance gas pipelines
adopt the parallel mode, a parallel model for the compressor units in the station was applied
in this study.
When solving the equations above, the nonlinear equations should be solved by the
iteration method, which will become more complicated, especially when the CS is also
considered. To accurately calculate the gas flow, pressure, and power for the standby
scheme, a commercial software SPS was applied for further calculation.

2.2. Standby Scheme Design

The number and position of the standby compressors for each scheme should be
confirmed, which means the number and position will determine the flow reliability. The
purpose of the standby scheme is to turn on the standby unit when the working unit is
shut down with failure or scheduled maintenance, by which the flow and pressure in the
pipeline can be ensured. Therefore, the steps for the standby scheme can be carried out
as follows:
(1) Input the total number m of the compressors. NG pipelines have large gas storage
capacities, which can stand for a certain period of time t1 after the compressor is shut
down. We confirm the outage probability for the single compressor and calculate the
outage time t2 using Monte Carlo simulation method. When t1 equals t2 , the number
j of compressors can be regarded as the maximum number of compressors out of
working together, which can also be regarded as the initial or minimum numbers of
the standby compressors.
j
(2) After the initial number is confirmed, Cm standby schemes can be obtained. For each
j
standby scheme, there are Cm faulted situations, which can be simulated by the Monte
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 6 of 16

the Monte Carlo simulation, in which the position that has the larger influence on the
Carlo simulation, in which the position that has the larger influence on the pipeline
pipeline system should be set as the faulted compressor position.
system should be set as the faulted compressor position.
(3) We use SPS to simulate the standby scheme with the worst faulted situation to calcu-
(3) We use SPS to simulate the standby scheme with the worst faulted situation to
late the flowthe
calculate andflow
pressure, by whichby
and pressure, thewhich
reliability index R can
the reliability be obtained.
index Ri ≥ R
R can beIf obtained.
, the
If Rstandby scheme can be available. If i < Cmj , step If i <(3)
j
Cmshould beshould
repeated
be to vali-
i ≥ R, the standby scheme can be available. , step (3) repeated
date the standby
to validate scheme (i+1).
the standby schemeAll(i+1).
available plans will
All available perform
plans will perform ′
a set Y .a set Y .
0
(4)(4) When
When thethe ′ 0 isisempty,
setsetYY empty, steps
steps (2)~(3)
(2)~(3)are
are repeated.
repeated.
(5)(5) We We calculate
calculate the power
the powerforfor
each scheme
each scheme setsetY ′Y 0and
in in andoutput
outputthethescheme
schemewith
withthethe
minimum
minimum power.
power.
The
Thesteps
stepsfor
forthe
thestandby
standbyscheme
schemecan
canbebeseen
seenininFigure
Figure2.2.

Cmj

j = j +1
Ri ≥ R

i > Cmj

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Program
Program steps
steps forfor the
the standby
standby scheme.
scheme.

2.2.1.Outage
2.2.1. Outage ProbabilityofofSingle
Probability SingleCompressor
Compressor
According to the North American Electric Reliability Commission, in 2005 [41], the
According to the North American Electric Reliability Commission, in 2005 [41], the
outage probability of a single compress was determined as 7.06%.
outage probability of a single compress was determined as 7.06%.
2.2.2. Monte Carlo Simulation
2.2.2. Monte Carlo Simulation
The outage probability and time for the CS can be calculated using the Monte Carlo
The outage
simulation probability
method, whichand
can time for theused
be further CS can be calculated
to calculate usingnumber
the initial the Monte Carlo
of standby
simulation method, which can be further used to calculate the initial number of standby
units. The detailed steps of the Monte Carlo simulation can be seen in the S1 section of
units. The detailed
Supplementary steps of the Monte Carlo simulation can be seen in the S1 section of
Materials.
Supplementary Materials.
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 7 of 16

j
After the initial number is confirmed, Cm standby schemes can be obtained. For each
j
standby scheme, there are Cm faulted situations, which can be simulated by the Monte
Carlo simulation.

2.3. Feasibility and Economic Analysis of the Standby Scheme

After the standby scheme is confirmed, the flow of the pipeline for each standby
scheme can be calculated, by which the flow reliability can be obtained. Further, the
pressure boundary for each standby scheme can be used to validate the feasibility of the
scheme. Moreover, an economic analysis of the power of the scheme should be conducted.

2.3.1. Feasibility Analysis with Pressure Boundary

The feasibility of the standby scheme means that when some of the compressor units
are shut down, the normal operation of the pipeline can be guaranteed by turning on the
standby unit.
After the standby scheme is obtained, the set of commonly used units is D, the set
of faulted units is F, and the set of compressor units in the standby scheme is S. For the
unit, the compressor set in the operating state is R = D − F + S. Moreover, the working
condition of the standby scheme should be calculated using SPS. If none of the following
boundaries exist, the standby scheme can be regarded as satisfied.
(1) The inlet pressure of the compressor is lower than the required inlet pressure;
(2) The operating pressure over a long distance is significantly lower than the designed one.

2.3.2. Economic Analysis with Power

After the feasibility analysis of the standby scheme, the flow and power of different
schemes will vary, through which, the following index can be defined:
n
∑ Ni
i =1
E= (8)
Q

where Ni is the power of the i–th compressor; n is the number of compressors; Q is the
pipeline flow; E is the economic parameter.

3. Case Study
The Xin–Yue–Zhe (XYZ) pipeline was used for the case study; it runs from the first
station in Yining, Xinjiang, to the last station in Shaoguan, Guangdong, with a total length
of 8372 km. Passing through 13 provinces, the pipeline has 1 main line and 6 branch lines,
of which 23 compressor stations are applied to transport NG with 30 billion m3 per year.
The total length of the main line is 4160 km, which has 20 compressor stations and 14
distribution stations. According to the design plan, each of the 20 compressor stations
is equipped with 2 to 3 commonly used compressors, and with one standby compressor,
which means 20 more compressors should be equipped as the standby units. The pipeline
system is shown in Figure 3.
 Energies
Energies 2022,
2022, 15,15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
8305 88ofof1616

Figure 3. XYZ pipeline project.

Figure 3. XYZ pipeline project.
The square blocks represent the compressor station and the ellipse blocks represent
The square blocks represent the compressor station and the ellipse blocks represent
the distribution station. The detailed information of the compressor station can be seen in
the distribution
Table 1. station. The detailed information of the compressor station can be seen in
Table 1.
Table 1. Compressors under working conditions.
Table 1. Compressors under working conditions.
Drive Power for Single Number of Drive Power for Single Number of
Station
Station No. Power for Single Number of Station No. Power for Single Number of
Mode
Drive Mode Compressor/MW Compressors Mode
Station No. Drive Mode Compressor/MW Compressors
No. Compressor/MW Compressors Compressor/MW Compressors
A001
A001 Electric
Electric 1818 22 C001
C001 Electric
Electric 18
18 33
A002 Electric 18 2 C002 Electric 20 3
A002 Electric 18 2 C002 Electric 20 3
A003 Electric 20 3 B008 Electric 18 3
A003 Electric 20 3 B008 Electric 18 3
A004 Electric 18 3 D001 Combustion 30 2
A004
B001 Electric
Electric 1818 33 D001
E001 Combustion
Electric 30
18 32
B001
B002 Electric
Electric 1818 33 E001
E004 Electric
Combustion 18
30 23
B002
B003 Electric
Electric 1818 33 E004
E006 Combustion
Electric 30
18 22
B003
B004 Electric
Combustion 3018 33 E006
F003 Electric
Electric 18
13 22
B005
B004 Electric
Combustion 1830 33 G001
F003 Electric
Electric 13 22
B007
B005 Electric
Electric 1818 33 G003
G001 Electric
Electric 13
13 22
B007 Electric 18 3 G003 Electric 13 2

SPS can be applied to calculate the pressure and flow along the pipeline. The boundary
SPS can
conditions are be
setapplied
as follows:to calculate the pressure
gas sources and the
1 and 2 have flow along
same the pipeline.
parameters, The can
which bound-
be
ary conditions are set as follows: gas sources 1 and 2 have the same
regarded as one source with the pressure boundary; gas source 3 and each distribution point parameters, which
can
are setbeasregarded
the flow as one source
boundary; the with
outletthe pressure
pressure andboundary;
maximum gas source
power for3the
andcompressor
each distri-
bution point are set as the flow boundary; the outlet pressure
are set. The results can be seen in S2 of Supplementary Materials section. and maximum power for
the The
compressor are set. The results can be seen in S2 of Supplementary
results of the numerical simulation indicate that the flow meets the design Materials section.
re-
The results of the numerical simulation indicate that the
quirements and the power for each compressor satisfies the power consumed by gas flow meets the design re-
quirements and the power for each compressor satisfies the power consumed
transportation. The outlet pressure falls into the design pressure range, and the inlet pres- by gas trans-
portation.
sure meets the Theneed
outletforpressure falls into These
the compressor. the design pressure
indicate range,
that the and themodel
numerical inlet pressure
can be
meets the need for the compressor.
applied for further simulations. These indicate that the numerical model can be applied
for In
further simulations.
Figure 3, there are three gas sources for the XYZ pipeline, which are the inlets
from the In Figure
A001 and3, there
A002 arestations,
three gas sources for the
respectively. XYZ
If the pipeline, which
compressors are the
in these twoinlets from
stations
fall in an outage, the pipeline will not work. Therefore, stations A001 and A002 must bein
the A001 and A002 stations, respectively. If the compressors in these two stations fall
an outage,
equipped withthe pipeline
standby will not units.
compressor work.The
Therefore, stations
optimization A001 and
of standby A002
scheme mustforbe
is only
equipped
the remaining with18standby
stations.compressor units. The optimization of standby scheme is only for
the remaining 18 stations.
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 9 of 16

3.1. Standby Scheme for the Remaining 18 Stations

3.1.1. Boundary Conditions for the Compressor Stations
(1) Pressure boundary conditions.
There are 27 distribution points that serve as the gas sources for the downstream users.
The pressure boundaries for each distribution station can be obtained as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Pressure boundaries of each distribution point.

Station No. Pressure/MPa Station No. Pressure/MPa Station No. Pressure/MPa Station No. Pressure/MPa
A003 4 B008 4 E005 4 G002 4
B003 4 D001 4 E006 4 G003 8.69
B004 4 D002 4 F001 4 G004 6.35
B005 4 D003 4 F002 4 G005 4
B006 4 E002 4 F003 4 H001 4
C001 4 E003 6.12 F004 4 H002 6.3
C002 4 E004 4 G001 4

In Table 2, the pressure boundaries in most of the distribution stations should be larger
than 4 MPa, and the pressures of E003, G003, G004, and H002 stations are higher, which
should be considered in priority.
(2) Shaft power.
The designed power for the compressor in Table 1 can be used to calculate the shaft
power, considering the efficiency of the driving mode, which is 55% for the electric driving
mode and 85% for the combustion mode, respectively. In addition, the shaft power of the
compressor can vary within a range of 110% for the upper limit, and 75% for the lower
limit, respectively. The calculated shaft power limits can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Power limits.

Upper Lower Upper Lower

Station No. Station No.
Power/MW Power/MW Power/MW Power/MW
A003 18.70 12.75 C002 18.70 12.75
A004 16.83 11.48 B008 16.83 11.48
B001 16.83 11.48 D001 18.15 12.38
B002 16.83 11.48 E001 16.83 11.48
B003 16.83 11.48 E004 18.15 12.38
B004 18.15 12.38 E006 16.83 11.48
B005 16.83 11.48 F003 12.16 8.29
B007 16.83 11.48 G001 12.16 8.29
C001 16.83 11.48 G003 12.16 8.29

3.1.2. Number of Standby Compressor Units

(1) Pipeline gas storage capacity.
When the gas sources and all of the compressor stations fail, the gas storage capacity
of the XYZ pipeline can withstand the gas transportation for a period. Using the pressure
boundaries for each distribution station, the pressure distribution of the whole pipeline can
be seen in Figure 4.
In Figure 4, as the time went for 220 min after the compressors were shut down, the
pressure of station G003 decreased to 8.69 MPa, which would not supply the gas if the
pressure continued to decrease. Therefore, the longest time to withstand the gas due to gas
storage capacity was 220 min.
Energies 2022, 15,
Energies 2022, 15, 8305
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of
10 of 16

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Pressure changes along
Pressure changes along the
the pipeline
pipeline after
after the
the compressors
compressors are
are shut
shut down.
down.

(2) In Figure of
Number 4, compressors
as the time went foroutage.
in the 220 min after the compressors were shut down, the
pressure of station G003 decreased to 8.69 MPa, which would not supply the gas if the
The outage probability for the single compressor unit was 7.06%. The outage probabil-
pressure continued to decrease. Therefore, the longest time to withstand the gas due to
ity and time calculated by the binomial distribution method and Monte Carlo method can
gas storage capacity was 220 min.
be seen in Table 4.
(2) Number of compressors in the outage.
4. Outage
TableThe probability
outage andfor
probability time.
the single compressor unit was 7.06%. The outage proba-
bility and time calculated by the binomial distribution method and Monte Carlo method
Number of Binomial
can be seenDistribution
in Table 4.Method Monte Carlo Method with 10,000 Iterations
Compressors Outage Probability Outage Time/(Days/Year) Outage Probability Outage Time/(Days/Year)
0 Table 4. Outage probability
0.029767 and time.
10.86 0.0292 10.658
1 0.108535 Binomial Distribution
39.62Method 0.1071 39.0915
Monte Carlo Method with 10,000 Iterations
Number2of Compressors 0.193750 70.72 0.1942 70.883
Outage Probability Outage Time/(Days/Year) Outage Probability Outage Time/(Days/Year)
3 0.225673 82.37 0.2279 83.1835
4 0 0.029767
0.192857 70.39 10.86 0.0292
0.1955 10.658
71.3575
5 1 0.108535
0.128920 47.06 39.62 0.1071
0.1223 39.0915
44.6395
6 2 0.193750
0.070184 25.62 70.72 0.1942
0.0724 70.883
26.426
7 3 0.031988
0.225673 11.68 82.37 0.033
0.2279 12.045
83.1835
8 4 0.012453
0.192857 4.55 70.39 0.0132
0.1955 4.818
71.3575
9 5 0.004204
0.128920 1.53 47.06 0.0037
0.1223 1.3505
44.6395
10 6 0.001246
0.070184 0.45 25.62 0.0011
0.0724 0.4015
26.426
11 0.000327 0.12 0.0004 0.1460
7 0.031988 11.68 0.033 12.045
12 0.000077 0.03 0 0
8 0.012453 4.55 0.0132 4.818
13 0.000016 0.01 0 0
14 9 0.004204
0.000003 0.00 1.53 00.0037 1.3505
0
15 10 0.001246
0.000001 0.00 0.45 00.0011 0.4015
0
16 11 0.000327
0.000000 0.00 0.12 00.0004 0.1460
0
17 12 0.000077
0.000000 0.00 0.03 0 0 00
18 13 0.000000
0.000016 0.00 0.01 0 0 00
19 14 0.000000
0.000003 0.00 0.00 0 0 00
20 15 0.000000
0.000001 0.00 0.00 0 0 00
16 0.000000
1.000000 365 0.00 1 0 3650
17 0.000000 0.00 0 0
18 0.000000 0.00 0 0
19 In Table 4, the probability
0.000000 0.00of 10 compressors being0 shut down at the same 0 time was
20 0.12%, of which
0.000000 the outage time
0.00 was 0.45 days or 648 min;
0 the probability of 11
0 units being
shut down
1.000000 at the same time was
365 0.03%, and the time was
1 0.12 days or 172.8 min.
365 Likewise,
the outage time of 10 compressors was 0.4015 days or 578.16 min; the outage time of 11
compressors was 0.146 days or 210.24 min. Therefore, according to the withstanding time
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 11 of 16

by the capacity, the maximum number that was shut down at the same time was 11, which
means the number of standby compressors should be more than 11.
11 = 31, 824 standby schemes.
Therefore, there will be at least C18

3.1.3. Standby Scheme

When the initial number of standby compressor units is 11 and the reliability index is
assumed at 100%, according to the steps for the standby scheme in Figure 2, the pressure
boundary for each standby scheme can be obtained by Equation (2). If the pressure satisfies
the boundary in Table 2, the scheme can be regarded as available. Thereafter, 13 schemes
are available as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Standby scheme.

No. Standby Compressor Positions

1 A004, B001, B002, B003, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
2 A004, B001, B002, B005, B007, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
3 A004, B001, B002, B005, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
4 A004, B001, B002, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
5 A004, B001, B003, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
6 A004, B001, B005, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
7 A004, B002, B003, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
8 A004, B002, B005, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
9 A004, B003, B005, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
10 B001, B002, B003, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
11 B001, B002, B005, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
12 B001, B003, B005, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003
13 B002, B003, B005, B007, C001, B008, E001, E006, F003, G001, G003

The schemes in Table 5 validate that 11 standby compressor units can be applied as
the standby scheme.

3.2. Reliability and Economic Analysis

3.2.1. Reliability Analysis
The 13 standby schemes obtained in Table 5 were reduced from 20 standby compres-
sors, of which, the flow reliability should be calculated, using the SPS simulation.
To calculate the flow, the position of the faulted compressor should be confirmed
first. Considering that, for each standby scheme there are C18 11 = 31, 824 kinds of faulted

compressor schemes, which can be simulated by the Monte Carlo method. If the standby
scheme satisfies the worst situation, the standby scheme can be regarded as reliable.
When two or more compressors in one station fail, the probability is 0.5% or 1%,
respectively. Therefore, in most of the actual situations, the outage with one compressor in
a station has the highest probability. When there is only one compressor shut down in a
station, reduced flow and power can be obtained, as seen in Figure 5.
Energies 2022,15,
Energies2022, 15,8305
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
12 16

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Influence
Influence of
of different
differentfaulted
faultedcompressor
compressorpositions
positionson
onflow
flowand
andpower.
power.

According
According to to the
the reduced
reduced flowflow inin Figure
Figure 5,
5, the
the outage
outage compressor
compressor stations
stations should
should bebe
set
set as
as the
the following
following sequence:
sequence: G003,
G003, G001,
G001, D001,
D001, E004,
E004, E006, B001, A004, A003, B004, B005,
B003,
B003, C002,
C002, B002,
B002, B007,
B007, C001,
C001, E001,
E001, B008,
B008, F003.
F003. If
If the
the compressor
compressor inin the
the station
station without
without
the
the standby
standby compressor
compressor fails,
fails, which
which will
will lead
lead to
to more
more severe
severe consequences,
consequences, the the faulted
faulted
compressor
compressor should
should bebe set
set in
in the
the station
station without
without standby
standby compressors.
compressors. Both
Both aspects
aspects being
being
taken
taken into
into consideration,
consideration, thethe worst
worst compressor
compressor positions
positions shutting
shutting down—corresponding
down—corresponding
to
to the
the standby
standby compressors—should
compressors—shouldbe beset,
set,as
asshown
shownin inTable
Table6.6.

Table6.6.Positions
Table Positionsof
ofthe
thefaulted
faultedcompressors.
compressors.

No. No. Shutdown Compressors

Shutdown Compressors
1 A003,
1 B001, B004, B005, B007, C002, D001, E004,C002,
A003, B001, B004, B005, B007, E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
2 A003,
2 B001, B003, B004, C001, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003E006, G001, G003
A003, B001, B003, B004, C001, C002, D001, E004,
3 A003,
3 B001, B003, B004, B007, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003
A003, B001, B003, B004, B007, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003
4 A003,
4 B001, B003,A003,
B004, B001,
B005, B003,
C002,B004,
D001,B005,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
5 5
A003, B001, B002,A003,
B004, B001,
B005, B002,
C002,B004,
D001,B005,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
6 6
A003, B001, B002,A003,
B003, B001,
B004, B002,
C002,B003,
D001,B004,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
7 A003, A004, B001, B004, B005, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003E006, G001, G003
7 A003, A004, B001, B004, B005, C002, D001, E004,
8 8
A003, A004, B001,A003,
B003,A004,
B004, B001,
C002,B003,
D001,B004,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
9 A003, A004, B001, B002, B004, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003
9 A003, A004, B001, B002, B004, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003
10 A003, A004, B001, B004, B005, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003
10 A003, A004, B001,A003,
11 B004,A004,
B005, B001,
C002,B003,
D001,B004,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
11 A003, A004, B001,A003,
12 B003,A004,
B004, B001,
C002,B002,
D001,B004,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
12 A003, A004, B001,A003,
13 B002,A004,
B004, B001,
C002,B004,
D001,B005,
E004,C002,
E006,D001,
G001,E004,
G003E006, G001, G003
13 A003, A004, B001, B004, B005, C002, D001, E004, E006, G001, G003

If one compressor (from the stations shown in Table 6) is shut down, and the standby
If one compressor (from the stations shown in Table 6) is shut down, and the standby
compressor starts, the number of compressors under working conditions can be seen in
compressor starts, the number of compressors under working conditions can be seen in
Table 7.
Table 7.

Table 7. Numbers of working compressors.

Scheme No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Station No.
A001 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
A002 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
A003 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
A004 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
B001 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 13 of 16

Table 7. Numbers of working compressors.

Station No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Scheme No.
A001 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
A002 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
A003 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
A004 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
B001 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2
B002 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4
B003 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 4
B004 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
B005 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 3
B007 2 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
C001 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
C002 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
B008 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
D001 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E001 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
E004 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E006 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
F003 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
G001 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
G003 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

When the compressors in Table 7 are working, the pressure, flow, and temperature of
the pipeline can be obtained, of which, the pressure of stations E003, G003, G004, and H002
are obtained in Table 8.

Table 8. Pressures of the take points in different schemes.

Station No. E003 G003 G004 H002

Pressure Boundary/MPa 6.12 8.69 6.35 6.3
1 9.200 9.670 9.520 9.313
2 9.233 9.685 9.530 9.313
3 9.232 9.683 9.529 9.313
4 9.221 9.678 9.526 9.313
5 9.221 9.678 9.526 9.313
6 9.235 9.684 9.530 9.313
Standby
7 9.223 9.679 9.526 9.313
Scheme 8 9.235 9.685 9.530 9.313
9 9.237 9.685 9.530 9.313
10 9.223 9.679 9.526 9.313
11 9.237 9.685 9.530 9.313
12 9.237 9.685 9.530 9.313
13 9.237 9.685 9.530 9.313

The pressures in Table 8 are higher than the pressure boundaries, which means the
standby schemes are available.
The flow of the main pipeline can be seen in Table 9.

Table 9. Flow of different standby schemes.

Standby Designed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Scheme Value
Flow/104 m3 /h 354 341.395 342.900 342.793 342.259 342.277 342.859 342.316 342.887 342.913 342.327 342.896 342.920 342.922
Reliability/% 100 96.44 96.86 96.83 96.68 96.69 96.85 96.70 96.86 96.87 96.70 96.86 96.87 96.87
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 14 of 16

In an actual situation, the flow volume with negative fluctuations of 5% can be ac-
cepted, which means the reliability index of the pipeline can be determined as R = 95% [42].
Therefore, the standby schemes in Table 9 are all reliable.

3.2.2. Economic Analysis

Through the above analyses based on the flow reliability and the pressure boundary,
13 standby schemes are reliable and available. However, since the power for different
schemes is different, the economic analysis should be conducted by calculating the power;
the results can be seen in Table 10.

Table 10. Shaft power of compressor stations for different schemes.

Station No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A001 25.5 25.7 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.7 25.7 25.6 25.7 25.7 25.7
A002 17.9 18.1 18.1 18.0 18.0 18.1 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.1
A003 34.5 35.1 35.0 34.8 34.8 35.0 34.8 35.1 35.1 34.8 35.1 35.1 35.1
A004 30.8 31.3 31.2 31.1 31.1 31.2 31.7 31.9 31.9 32.9 33.1 33.1 33.1
B001 32.8 33.2 33.2 33.0 33.0 33.2 34.4 34.6 34.6 33.3 33.4 33.5 34.7
B002 32.1 32.8 32.7 32.5 34.4 34.7 32.8 33.1 35.0 32.8 33.1 35.0 33.3
B003 32.1 34.6 34.5 34.3 32.7 34.8 32.6 34.8 33.1 32.6 34.8 33.1 33.0
B004 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
B005 35.9 42.4 42.3 35.9 35.9 43.0 35.9 43.0 43.0 35.9 43.0 43.0 43.4
B007 35.9 34.9 35.9 47.0 47.0 34.4 46.9 34.4 34.4 46.9 34.4 34.4 34.4
C001 51.4 35.4 35.3 35.0 35.0 34.8 35.0 34.8 34.8 35.0 34.8 34.8 34.8
C002 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
B008 46.3 45.4 45.5 45.8 45.8 45.4 45.8 45.4 45.4 45.8 45.4 45.4 45.4
D001 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
E001 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8
E004 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0
E006 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9
F003 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8 38.8
G001 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9
G003 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9 25.9
Sum 733.3 727.1 727.7 731.3 731.5 728.8 731.8 729.1 729.3 731.9 729.1 729.4 729.3

Moreover, E can be calculated using the power in Table 10, of which the results can be
seen in Table 11.

Table 11. Evaluation parameter E.

Scheme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
E/MJ/104 m3 2.148 2.120 2.123 2.138 2.137 2.126 2.138 2.126 2.127 2.138 2.126 2.127 2.127

In Table 11, Scheme 2 has the smallest cost, indicating that Scheme 2 is the optimal
standby scheme. A total of 13 standby compressors are required, which is reduced by 7,
and the pipeline reliability can reach 96.86%.

4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

In this study, an optimization method for the compressor standby scheme was de-
signed and developed using the reliability analysis and economic analysis based on the
Monte Carlo simulation. The following conclusions and policy implications were drawn:
(1) The flow reliability was proposed according to the ratio of the actual flow, which
withstands the compressor outage to the designed flow.
(2) The binomial distribution method and Monte Carlo method were used to calculate
the compressor outage probability of the whole pipeline, respectively, through which
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 15 of 16

the initial number of standby compressors was obtained, considering the gas storage
capacity of the pipeline.
(3) The standby schemes were designed with the help of the Monte Carlo simulation, to find
out the effective standby scheme that could satisfy the flow and pressure boundaries.
(4) According to the influence of the compressor outage on the pipeline flow, the worst
situation in which the compressors were shut down was used to test the standby
scheme, calculating the flow reliability, pressure boundary, and total power. The
standby scheme that had the largest reliability with minimum power was determined.
(5) The proposed method was applied in the case study of the Xin–Yue–Zhe (XYZ)
pipeline. The number of standby compressors was reduced to 13 from 20 and the
pipeline reliability reached 96.86%.
(6) In the future, because the outage probability determines the final compressor system,
the outage probability of the single compressor should be noticed as the historical
data are recorded. Moreover, the operation styles and the number of compressors in
stations should be considered according to the actual situation. In addition, a method
to calculate the flow of the pipeline more precisely will be required to accelerate the
standby scheme design process.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en15218305/s1, Figure S1: Flow diagram of the optimal multiplier;
Figure S2: Principle diagram of importance sampling method; Figure S3: Principle diagram of
modified importance sampling method; Figure S4: Main line graph under design condition; Table S1:
Compressor shaft power.
Author Contributions: Software, X.L.; investigation, X.L.; data curation, Y.L.; writing—original draft
preparation, Y.X.; writing—review and editing, Y.X.; supervision, Q.F. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Guangdong Provincial Key R&D Program (grant number
2019B111102001).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Li, G.Q.; Sun, L.G.; Mao, P.P.; Liu, S.S. New technologies used in compressor station design of long–distance gas pipeline. Oil Gas
Storage Trans. 2012, 31, 884–886.
2. Tang, S.H.; Chen, X.X. Discussion on Optimization Arrangement & Equipment Distribution of Compressor Stations in West–east
Pipeline. Petro. Eng. Constr. 2003, 29, 12–14.
3. Wang, L.; Luo, Z.P. Compressor style determination for natural gas main pipelines. China Chem. Trade 2012, 3, 47–48.
4. Rimkevicius, S.; Kaliatka, A.; Valincius, M.; Dundulis, G.; Janulionis, R.; Grybenas, A.; Zutautaite, I. Development of approach for
reliability assessment of pipeline network systems. Appl. Energy 2012, 94, 22–33. [CrossRef]
5. Efimenko, L.A.; Konovalova, O.V.; Efimenko, A.M. Evaluating pipeline causes from metal structural mechanics states. Chem. Pet.
Eng. 1999, 35, 56–58. [CrossRef]
6. Baker, T.N.; Rochfort, G.G.; Parkins, R.N. Pipeline rupture—Conclusion. Stress–corrosion cracking studies prompt changes in
pipeline operating conditions. Oil Gas J. 1987, 2, 37–38.
7. Mercer, W.L. Stress–corrosion cracking of mild steel in phosphate solution. In Sixth Symposium on Line Pipe Research; American
Gas Association: Houston, TX, USA, 1979; pp. W1–W32.
8. Iverson, W.P. Microbial corrosion of metals. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 1987, 32, 1–36.
9. Seventh Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. 1970–2007 [Document Number EGIG 08. TV–B.0502, 2008].
Available online: https://scirp.org/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=1113055 (accessed on 15 July 2022).
10. Suna, Y.; Ma, L.; Morris, J. A practical approach for reliability prediction of pipeline systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 198, 210–214.
[CrossRef]
11. Crawley, F.K.; Lines, I.G.; Mather, J. Oil and gas pipeline failure modelling. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2003, 81, 3–11. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 8305 16 of 16

12. Han, Z.Y.; Weng, W.G. An integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind.
2010, 23, 428–436. [CrossRef]
13. Amirat, A.; Chateauneuf, A.; Chaoui, K. Reliability assessment of underground pipelines under the combined effect of active
corrosion and residual stress. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2006, 83, 107–117. [CrossRef]
14. Eser, P.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R. Impact of Nord Stream 2 and LNG on gas trade and security of supply in the European gas
network of 2030. Appl. Energy 2019, 238, 816–830. [CrossRef]
15. Praks, P.; Kopustinskas, V.; Masera, M. Probabilistic modelling of security of supply in gas networks and evaluation of new
infrastructure. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2015, 144, 254–264. [CrossRef]
16. Monforti, F.; Szikszai, A. A MonteCarlo approach for assessing the adequacy of the European gas transmission system under
supply crisis conditions. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2486–2498. [CrossRef]
17. Szikszai, A.; Monforti, F. GEMFLOW: A time dependent model to assess responses to natural gas supply crises. Energy Policy
2011, 39, 29–36. [CrossRef]
18. Flouri, M.; Karakosta, C.; Kladouchou, C.; Psarras, J. How does a natural gas supply interruption affect the EU gas security? A
Monte Carlo simulation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 785–796. [CrossRef]
19. Pambour, K.A.; Erdener, B.C.; Bolado-Lavin, R.; Dijkema, G.P.J. SAInt—A novel quasi–dynamic model for assessing security of
supply in coupled gas and electricity transmission networks. Appl. Energy 2017, 203, 829–857. [CrossRef]
20. Fu, X.; Zhang, X. Failure probability estimation of gas supply using the central moment method in an integrated energy system.
Appl. Energy 2018, 219, 1–10. [CrossRef]
21. Fu, X.; Li, G.; Zhang, X.; Qiao, Z. Failure probability estimation of the gas supply using a data–driven model in an integrated
energy system. Appl. Energy 2018, 232, 704–714. [CrossRef]
22. Fan, M.; Gong, J.; Wu, Y.; Kong, W. Gas supply reliability analysis of the Shaanxi–Beijing gas pipeline network based on the
simplified topological structure. Nat. Gas Ind. 2017, 37, 123–129.
23. Yu, W.; Song, S.; Li, Y.; Min, Y.; Huang, W.; Wen, K.; Gong, J. Gas supply reliability assessment of natural gas transmission pipeline
systems. Energy 2018, 162, 853–870. [CrossRef]
24. Shaikh, F.; Ji, Q.; Fan, Y. Evaluating China’s natural gas supply security based on ecological network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,
139, 1196–1206. [CrossRef]
25. Lu, W.; Su, M.; Fath, B.D.; Zhang, M.; Hao, Y. A systematic method of evaluation of the Chinese natural gas supply security. Appl.
Energy 2016, 165, 858–867. [CrossRef]
26. Su, H.; Zhang, J.; Zio, E.; Yang, N.; Li, X.; Zhang, Z. An integrated systemic method for supply reliability assessment of natural
gas pipeline networks. Appl. Energy 2018, 209, 489–501. [CrossRef]
27. Yu, W.; Gong, J.; Song, S.; Huang, W.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Hong, B.; Zhang, Y.; Wen, K.; Duan, X. Gas supply reliability analysis of a
natural gas pipeline system considering the effects of underground gas storages. Appl. Energy 2019, 252, 113418. [CrossRef]
28. Li, M.F.; Zheng, H.L.; Xue, X.D.; Xue, L.N.; Ai, M.Y.; Ma, W.H. Reliability evaluation and management of PetroChina’s large–scale
system of natural gas pipeline networks. J. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2019, 4, 287–295. [CrossRef]
29. Mao, P.; Xu, Q.; Yuan, L.; Wang, X. Comparision of backup mode of compressor unit in gas compressor station of gas pipeline. Oil
Gas Storage Trans. 2015, 6, 646–648.
30. Catchpole, J.O.; Kelly, M.J.; Musgrave, C. Reliability growth of gas turbine powered compressor units. Reliab. Eng. 1984, 8,
235–254. [CrossRef]
31. Petrova, I.M.; Filimonov, M.A. Reliability Assessment of the Compressor Connecting Rods. J. Mach. Manuf. Reliab. 2018, 47,
142–146. [CrossRef]
32. Tran, T.H.; French, S.; Ashman, R.; Kent, E. Impact of compressor failures on gas transmission network capability. Appl. Math.
Model 2018, 55, 741–757. [CrossRef]
33. Woo, S.W.; Pecht, M.; O’Neal, D.L. Reliability design and case study of the domestic compressor subjected to repetitive internal
stresses. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2020, 193, 106604. [CrossRef]
34. Gentsch, M.; King, R. Real–time estimation of a multi–stage centrifugal compressor performance map considering real–gas
processes and flexible operation. J. Process Control 2020, 85, 227–243. [CrossRef]
35. Li, X.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, L.; Deng, N.; Zhang, Y.; Jin, Z.; Yu, X.; Yao, S. Experimental and economic analysis with a novel
ejector–based detection system for thermodynamic measurement of compressors. Appl. Energy 2020, 261, 114395. [CrossRef]
36. dos Santos, S.P.; Bittencourt, M.A.S.; Vasconcellos, L.D. Compressor Station Availability: Managing Its Effects on Gas Pipeline
Operation. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, 25–29 September 2006; American
Society of Mechanical Engineers: Calgary, AB, Canada, 2006.
37. Chen, R.G. Power of compressor for natural gas pipelines. Petro. Design 2000, 6, 1–3.
38. Li, M.F.; Zhou, L.J.; Zheng, H.L. Current reliability assessment techniques for natural gas pipeline networks in China. Oil Gas
Storage Trans. 2015, 5, 464–468.
39. Zhang, Z.J.; Xie, Q.Q.; Wen, J.B. Reliability evaluation method for gas trunk line. Oil Gas Storage Trans. 2014, 8, 807–812.
40. Li, Y.X.; Yao, G.Z. Design and Management for Natural Gas Pipelines; China University Petroleum Press: Dongying, China, 2009.
41. North American Electric Reliability Council; NERC Report of January 2005; Princeton Forrestal Village: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005.
42. Ai, M. Discussion on issues regarding the reliability of large-scale oil and gas pipeline network systems. Oil Gas Storage Transp.
2013, 32, 1265–1270.