skip to main content
10.1145/3207677.3277975acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescsaeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Solution Method for Reliability Evaluation of Dust-proofing Water Supply Network in pit

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In1 order to improve work environment and protect workers' health, the task of the water supply network is to reducing dust in pit, so the stable operation of water supply network is very important. In order to enhance the reliability of water supply network in pit, the model for reliability evaluation of dust-proofing water supply network is established. The length, diameter, failure rate, both of repair time of pipe and water volume of node are determined as evaluation indexes in the paper. The paper adopts sobol sequence as the core of Quasi Monte Carlo method to simulate and solve the reliability evaluation model at the first time. Lin-nan mine is used as application and do statistical analysis for the results at last. According to the research, the pipes that are important to the network can be determined, what is more, the reliabilities of node and the entire network can be obtained.

References

  1. Jochen W.Deuerlein, 2008. Decomposition Model of a General Water Supply Network Graph. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134, 822--832.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. HOU Xiaodong and Jiang Zhongan, 2008. Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis of Failure of Water Supply Network for Mine Dust-proofing. Metal Mine, 384, 112--115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Zimoch, I, 2012. Pressure Control as Part of Risk Management for a Water-pipe Network in Service. Ochrona Srodowiska, 34(4), 57--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fragiadakis, M, Christodoulou, SE, Vamvatsikos, D, 2013. Reliability Assessment of Urban Water Distribution Networks Under Seismic Loads. Water Resources Management, 27(10), 3739--3764.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Roozbahani, A, Zahraie, B, Tabesh, M, 2013. Integrated risk assessment of urban water supply systems from source to tap. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 27(4), 923--944.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. S.J.T. POLLARD, J.E.STRUTT and B.H.MACGILLIVRAY, 2007. RISK ANALYSY AND MANAGEMENT IN THE WATER UTILITY SECTOR. Process Safety And Environmetal Protection, 82(B6), 453--462.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Gonzalez-Fernandez, RA and da Silva, AML, 2011. Reliability Assessment of Time-Dependent Systems via Sequential Cross-Entropy Monte Carlo Simulation. IEEE Transactions On Power Systems, 26(4), 2381--2389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. R.Ferdous, F.I.Khan and B.Veitch, 2007. Methodology for Computer-Aided Fault Tree Analysis.Process Safety and Environmetal Protection, 85(B1), 70--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. SANG Hai-tao, MENG Zhi-song and ZHOU Zhen, 2010. Reliability Analysis of Water Supply Network System for Mine Dust-proofing in GO Methodology. Science Technology And Engineering, 10(28), 6989--6993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. YUAN Hai-feng, SANG Hai-tao, MENG Zhi-song, 2011. On the Reliability of Dust-proofing and Water-supplying Network System for Mines with GO Quantitative Analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang Meifa, Jing Hui and Kuang Bing, 2010. Measurement uncertainty evaluation based on quasi Monte-Carlo method. Chinese Journal Of Scientific Instrument, 30(1), 120--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Sybert H.Stroeve, Henk A.P.Blom and G.J(Bert) Bakker, 2009.Systemic accident risk assessment in air traffic by Monte Carlo simulation. Safety Science, 47, 238--249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Damien Jacquemart and Jerome Morio, 2013. Conflict probability estimation between aircraft with dynamic importance splitting. Safety Science, 51, 94--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Yuefeng Sun, Haotian Chang, Zhengjian Miao, et al, 2012. Solution method of overtopping risk model for earth dams. Safety Science, 5, 1906--1912.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ZHOU Xin-lian, 2010. Some Common Random Numbers and Their Properties. Journal of Yuanyang Teachers College, 30(6), 13--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Wen XL, Zhao YB and Wang DX, 2013.Adaptive Monte Carlo and GUM methods for the evaluation of measurement uncertainty of cylindricity error. Precision Engineering-Journal of The International Societies for Precision Engineering and Nanotechnology, 37(4), 856--864.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Solution Method for Reliability Evaluation of Dust-proofing Water Supply Network in pit

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      CSAE '18: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering
      October 2018
      1083 pages
      ISBN:9781450365123
      DOI:10.1145/3207677

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 October 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      CSAE '18 Paper Acceptance Rate189of383submissions,49%Overall Acceptance Rate368of770submissions,48%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader