城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险评估

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.0285

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (2): 194-201.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.0285

城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险评估

王轶宏¹(), 翟越¹^,², 李艳¹^,², 屈璐¹^,²

¹ 长安大学地质工程与测绘学院,陕西西安 710054
² 长安大学安全技术研究所,陕西西安 710054

收稿日期:2022-10-27 修回日期:2023-01-13 出版日期:2023-02-28 发布日期:2023-08-28
作者简介:
王轶宏 (1997—),男,山西运城人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向为工程风险预测与防控。E-mail:2453587599@qq.com。
翟越，教授
李艳，副教授
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(41941019); 陕西省创新人才推进计划科技创新团队项目(2021TD-55)

Risk assessment of vapor cloud explosion accident of urban gas pipe network under leakage condition

WANG Yihong¹(), ZHAI Yue¹^,², LI Yan¹^,², QU Lu¹^,²

¹ School of Geological Engineering and Geomatics, Chang 'an University, Xi'an Shaanxi 710054, China
² Safety Technology Research Institute,Chang 'an University, Xi'an Shaanxi 710054, China

Received:2022-10-27 Revised:2023-01-13 Online:2023-02-28 Published:2023-08-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为解决城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故的风险定量评估问题,提出一种网格化的风险评估方法。首先,综合分析管道故障的影响因素和管道泄漏蒸气云爆炸的后果损失类型,并计算管道的失效概率和管道某一点泄漏导致蒸气云爆炸后在一个网格内的后果损失货币量化值,两者相乘得到该网格中心点的风险值。然后,利用叠加场的原理,将对网格中心点有影响的管段各点风险值耦合叠加,得出各网格中心点的总风险值,进而绘制出评估区域的风险等值线。最后,应用于实例,绘制出某地区燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸的风险等值线,根据风险可接受准则,评价区域划分为特别、重点和一般防护区,并得到相应的防护区域范围。结果表明:网格化的风险评估方法能够准确评估城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险,并使区域风险划分相比传统方法更加精细和形象,有助于提高社会安全防护物资利用率。

关键词: 燃气管网, 蒸气云爆炸, 风险评估, 货币量化, 叠加场

Abstract:

In order to solve the problem of quantitative risk assessment of vapor cloud explosion accident under the condition of urban gas pipe network leakage, a grid risk assessment method was proposed. Firstly, the influence factors of pipeline failure and the loss type of vapor cloud explosion caused by pipeline leakage were analyzed comprehensively, and the risk value of the center point of the grid was obtained by multiplying the failure probability of the pipeline and the monetary quantified value of the consequence loss in the grid after the vapor cloud explosion caused by leakage at a certain point of the pipeline. Then, based on the principle of superposition field, the risk value of each point in the pipeline segment that had an impact on the center point of the grid was coupled and superimposed to obtain the total risk value of each center point of the grid, and then the risk contour line of the evaluation area was drawn. Finally, the method was applied to a field to draw the risk contour line of vapor cloud explosion of gas pipe network leakage in a certain area. According to the risk acceptability criterion, the evaluation area was divided into special, key and general protection areas, and the corresponding protection area scope was obtained. The results show that the method can accurately evaluate the risk of vapor cloud explosion accident of urban gas pipe network leakage, and make regional risk division more refined and visual than traditional methods, which is helpful to improve the utilization rate of social security protection materials.

Key words: gas pipeline network, vapor cloud explosion, risk assessment, monetary quantification, superposition field

王轶宏, 翟越, 李艳, 屈璐. 城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2): 194-201.

WANG Yihong, ZHAI Yue, LI Yan, QU Lu. Risk assessment of vapor cloud explosion accident of urban gas pipe network under leakage condition[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 194-201.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

参考文献 19

[1]	刘夏村. 城市燃气事故追踪:今年7起较大事故敲响警钟,燃气安全该如何保障?[EB/OL].(2021-12-01). https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1717934759761851545&wfr=spider&for=pc
[2]	徐亚博, 钱新明, 刘振翼. 天然气输送管道泄漏事故危害定量分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18 (1): 146-149.
	XU Yabo, QIAN Xinming, LIU Zhenyi. Quantitative risk analysis on the leakage of compressed natural gas pipeline[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2008, 18(1): 146-149.
[3]	杨克, 王壮, 贺雷, 等. 天然气管道蒸汽云爆炸事故定量计算及风险评估[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2019, 45(11): 31-35.
	YANG Ke, WANG Zhuang, HE Lei, et al. Risk assessment and quantitative calculation of steam cloud explosion accidents in natural gas pipelines[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019, 45(11): 31-35.
[4]	ZHANG Peng, QIN Guojin, WANG Yihuan. Risk assessment system for oil and gas pipelines laid in one ditch based on quantitative risk analysis[J]. Energies, 2019, 12(6): DOI:10.3390/en12060981. doi: 10.3390/en12060981
[5]	MA Lei, LI Yongshu, LIANG Lei, et al. A novel method of quantitative risk assessment based on grid difference of pipeline sections[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 59: 219-226. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.04.012
[6]	李天祺, 赵振东, 余世舟. 基于GIS的爆炸灾害数值模拟与应急损失评估[J]. 灾害学, 2010, 25(3): 96-99.
	LI Tianqi, ZHAO Zhendong, YU Shizhou. GIS-based numerical simulation and emergency loss evaluation of explosion disasters[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2010, 25(3): 96-99.
[7]	王秋红, 王力文, 蒋军成, 等. 城镇地埋天然气管道泄漏诱发气云爆炸仿真[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 75-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.011
	WANG Qiuhong, WANG Liwen, JIANG Juncheng, et al. Simulation study on gas explosion induced by gas leakage of urban buried gas pipelines[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 75-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.011
[8]	JONKMAN S N, VAN G P H A J M, VRIJLING J.K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 99(1): 1-30. pmid: 12686021
[9]	焦建瑛, 吴波, 顾先凯, 等. 城镇燃气管道网格化动态后果评估方法研究[J]. 煤气与热力, 2021, 41(2): 27-31,36,46.
	JIAO Jianying, WU Bo, GU Xiankai, et al. Study on dynamic consequences assessment method of urban gas pipeline gridding[J]. Gas and Heat, 2021, 41(2): 27-31,36,46.
[10]	李云涛, 张振永, 刘玉卿, 等. 天然气管道全管径断裂事故影响范围研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(9): 149-154.
	LI Yuntao, ZHANG Zhenyong, LIU Yuqing, et al. Influence range of full bore rupture accidents of natural gas pipelines[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(9): 149-154.
[11]	翟越, 汪铁楠, 屈璐, 等. 基于IFS-动态加权的地下综合体深基坑施工风险评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(4): 1389-1396.
	ZHAI Yue, WANG Tienan, QU Lu, et al. Risk assessment for the deep foundation pit construction of the underground complex based on the IFS-dynamic weighting[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(4): 1389-1396.
[12]	李爽, 陈利琼, 张鹏, 等. 管道失效人身伤亡事故的经济性评价[J]. 天然气与石油, 2006, 24(1): 36-39.
	LI Shuang, CHEN Liqiong, ZHANG Peng, et al. Economic evaluation analysis on failure of pipeline[J]. Natural Gas & Oil, 2006, 24(1): 36-39.
[13]	刘畅, 李海涛, 吴峰, 等. 城区天然气管道影响因素分析[C]. 2015年全国天然气学术年会论文集, 2015: 1407-1412.
[14]	陈雪锋. 天然气长输管道定量风险评价方法及其应用研究[D]. 北京: 北京科技大学, 2020.
	CHEN Xuefeng. Quantitative risk assessment method and its application of natural gas long-distance pipeline[D]. Beijing: University of Science and Technology Beijing, 2020.
[15]	黄小美, 李百战, 彭世尼, 等. 燃气管道失效概率评估方法研究[J]. 石油学报, 2010, 31(4): 664-667. doi: 10.7623/syxb201004028
	HUANG Xiaomei, LI Baizhan, PENG Shini, et al. Assessment methods of failure probability on gas pipelines[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2010, 31(4): 664-667. doi: 10.7623/syxb201004028
[16]	许贵贤. 液化石油气储罐事故后果分析[J]. 华北科技学院学报, 2016, 13(6): 101-105.
	XU Guixian. Consequence analysis of LPG tank accidents[J]. Journal of North China University of Science and Technology, 2016, 13(6): 101-105.
[17]	王小完, 马骥, 骆正山. 基于天然气管线泄漏蒸汽云爆炸危害分析[J]. 灾害学, 2013, 28(3): 16-19,53.
	WANG Xiaowan, MA Ji, LUO Zhengshan. Hazard analysis on vapor cloud explosion based on nature gas pipeline leakage[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2013, 28(3):16-19,53.
[18]	ANDREA R, LARA L T, SERGI C, et al. Economic valuation of damages originated by major accidents in port areas[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2009, 22(5): 639-648. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2009.03.001
[19]	JOHNSON D M, PEKALSKI A, TAM V H Y, et al. Interpretation of damage caused by a vapor cloud explosion[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2019, 39(2): DOI:10.1002/prs.12106. doi: 10.1002/prs.12106

破坏等级	破坏系数	常数	破坏状况
1	1.0	3.8	所有建筑物均被破坏
2	0.6	4.6	砌砖房外表50%~70%破损,墙壁下部危险
3	0.5	9.6	房屋不能再居住,房基部分或全部破坏,承重墙严重损坏
4	0.3	28	建筑物受到一定程度的破坏,隔墙木结构要加固

城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险评估

Risk assessment of vapor cloud explosion accident of urban gas pipe network under leakage condition

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 19

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	南彦洲, 柯辉, 朱才华, 姚振兴, 李岩. 面向驾驶员心电数据的交叉口驾驶风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2): 185-193.
[2]	郑安娜, 李建微, 陈思喜, 郭伟, 陈晓梦. 城市洪涝风险评估中的软件应用及进展[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(9): 118-125.
[3]	姜文宇, 王飞, 苏国锋, 李鑫, 孟庆祥, 王冠宁. 面向森林火灾的应急管理信息化关键技术[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(9): 182-191.
[4]	孙树立, 韩旭东, 陈璞. 建筑结构安全分析方法与评估技术综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(9): 37-48.
[5]	周勇, 杨波, 唐伟, 李月安, 王月冬, 李泽椿. 面向公共安全的气象监测预报预警软件发展综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(9): 76-85.
[6]	李金蓉, 杨玉中. DS理论-贝叶斯网络下的煤矿通风系统风险评估*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(8): 146-153.
[7]	法慧妍, 帅斌, 吕敏, 黄文成. 基于WBS-RBS和IFWA算子的中欧班列多式联运安全风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(6): 200-206.
[8]	刘嘉豪, 余杨, 张振兴, 余建星, 王巍巍, 傅一钦. 二维云模型和贝叶斯网络的立管风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(5): 147-154.
[9]	辛保泉, 喻健良, 党文义, 白永忠, 于安峰. 定量风险评估视域下的多组分混合物危险特性[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4): 80-85.
[10]	卢颖, 赵志攀, 姜学鹏, 吴锦东, 范小鹏. 大数据视域下体育场馆动态火灾风险指标研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4): 155-162.
[11]	黄杰, 张显峰. 以南疆为例的区域暴恐袭击风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 192-199.
[12]	张鸽. 基于累积接尘量的尘肺病风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 200-206.
[13]	纪柯柯, 李正中, 刘双, 张馨, 王冠妍, 王绪亭. 港口岸桥安装施工安全风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(12): 102-109.
[14]	张小良, 梁梵洁, 许素睿. 城市燃气事故不安全行为风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(12): 125-132.
[15]	陈国华, 李佳玲, 陈学希, 杨琴. 灾害链网络下城市区域安全风险评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11): 146-153.