模糊推理-组合赋权的化工工艺本质安全度研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.08.1389

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高化工企业安全生产水平,基于本质安全指数法(ISI)选取10个指标,建立化工工艺过程本质安全评价指标体系,划分各评价指标等级,结合Matlab环境下的Mamdani模糊推理方法进行模糊推理;依据四级指标参数下的安全度等级评分数值,建立各三级指标下的规则输出矩阵,最大程度上保留模糊理论型本质安全评价结果的灵敏性,得到可视化三维模糊推理曲面图;为精确本质安全评价结果,建立兼顾主客观权重且距离最小的目标函数,优化利用归一法和熵权法计算出的各评价指标的主客观组合权重,减少组合赋权结果偏差;应用该方法评估 4 条工艺路线的本质安全度。结果表明:基于模糊推理-组合赋权的本质安全评价法,在兼顾主客观权重的同时,最小化主客观权重距离偏差,线性加权综合计算各项安全指标评分,精确输出组合赋权后的本质安全评估结果数值。该方法的评估结果与前人文献中评价结果基本吻合,证明该方法具有一定的科学性和有效性。

关键词: 模糊推理, 组合赋权, 化工工艺, 本质安全度, 评价指标

Abstract:

In order to improve the production safety level of chemical enterprises, 10 indexes were selected based on the intrinsic safety index method (ISI), and an intrinsic safety evaluation index system for chemical processes was established. Each evaluation index level was divided, and fuzzy reasoning was carried out with Mamdani fuzzy reasoning method in the Matlab environment. The rule output matrix under each three-level index was established according to the safety grade score value under the four-level index parameters. The sensitivity of fuzzy theoretical intrinsic safety evaluation results was preserved to the maximum extent, and the visual 3D fuzzy inference surface diagram was obtained. In order to accurately evaluate the intrinsic safety evaluation results, an objective function with the minimum distance and both subjective and objective weights was established, and the combined subjective and objective weights of each evaluation index calculated by the normalization method and entropy weight method were optimized to reduce the bias of the combined weight results. This method was applied to evaluate the intrinsic safety degree of four process routes, and the evaluation results were basically consistent with the evaluation methods proposed by predecessors. The research shows that: Based on the fuzzy inference-combination weighting intrinsic safety evaluation method, the distance deviation of subjective and objective weights is minimized while taking into account the subjective and objective weights. The evaluation results of this method are basically consistent with those of previous literature, which proves that this method has certain scientificity and effectiveness.

Key words: fuzzy logic, combination weighting, chemical process, inherent safety, evaluation indexes

张任栋, 张礼敬, 陶刚. 模糊推理-组合赋权的化工工艺本质安全度研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(8): 149-155.

ZHANG Rendong, ZHANG Lijing, TAO Gang. Research on inherent safety of chemical process based on fuzzy reasoning-combination weighting[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(8): 149-155.

图/表 11

图1

表1

表2

表3

图2

图3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

参考文献 19

[1]	曾晓, 张礼敬, 陶刚, 等. 危险化工工艺风险辨识方法研究[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2011, 37(5): 47-49.
	ZENG Xiao, ZHANG Lijing, TAO Gang, et al. Research on risk identification of dangerous chemical process[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2011, 37(5): 47-49.
[2]	刘伟. 加油站本质安全化程度评价方法研究[D]. 北京: 首都经济贸易大学, 2008.
[3]	HEIKKILA A M. Inherent safety in process plant design[D]. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, 1999.
[4]	KLETZ T A. Inherently safer design: the growth of an Idea[J]. Process Safety Progress, 1996, 15(1): 5-8. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1547-5913
[5]	GUPTA J P, EDWARDS D W. A simple graphical method for measuring inherent safety[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 104(1/2/3): 15-30. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3894(03)00231-0
[6]	EDWARDS D W, LAWRENCE D. Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process routes: is there a relation between plant costs and inherent safety?[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 1993, 71:252-258.
[7]	GENTILE M, ROGERS W J, MANNAN M S. Development of an inherent safety index based on fuzzy logic[J]. AIChE Journal, 2003, 49(4): 959-968. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1547-5905
[8]	MICHELA G, WILLIAM J R, MANNAN M S. Development of a fuzzy logic-based inherent safety index[J]. Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2003, 81(6): 444-456.
[9]	闫玲玲, 焦巍, 项曙光. 不同化工过程本质安全评价方法的比较与分析[J]. 计算机与应用化学, 2010, 27(8): 1037-1041.
	YAN Lingling, JIAO Wei, XIANG Shuguang. The comparison and analysis of different chemical process inherent safety evaluating methods[J]. Computers and Applied Chemistry, 2010, 27(8): 1 037-1 041.
[10]	焦巍, 李忠杰, 夏力, 等. 化工过程本质安全评价指标的研究进展[J]. 计算机与应用化学, 2009, 26(8): 1084-1088.
	JIAO Wei, LI Zhongjie, XIA Li. Advancement of inherent safety evaluating index for chemical process[J]. Computers and Applied Chemistry, 2009, 26(8): 1 084-1 088.
[11]	付燕平. 化工工艺设备本质安全程度评价模式研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳航空工业学院, 2006.
	FU Yanping. The research on inherent safety assessment of the chemical technique equipment[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Aerospace University, 2006.
[12]	王艳华, 陈宝智, 黄俊. 化工过程本质安全性之模糊评价系统[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(7): 128-133.
	WANG Yanhua, CHEN Baozhi, HUANG Jun. Study on the fuzzy evaluation system for the inherent safety of chemical process[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2008, 18(7): 128-133.
[13]	叶君乐, 蒋军成, 阴健康, 等. 基于模糊综合评价的化工工艺本质安全指数研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(6):125-130.
	YE Junle, JIANG Juncheng, YIN Jiankang, et al. Study on inherent safety index of chemical process based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(6):125-130.
[14]	魏丹, 蒋军成, 倪磊, 等. 基于未确知测度理论的化工工艺本质安全度研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(5):117-122. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.05.020
	WEI Dan, JIANG Juncheng, NI Lei, et al. Uncertainty measurement theory based evaluation of inherent safety of chemical process[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(5):117-122. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.05.020
[15]	马爱迪, 岳忠, 孙宝平, 等. 基于改进组合赋权法的建筑火灾保险费率研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(11):134-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.020
	MA Aidi, YUE Zhong, SUN Baoping, et al. Research on building fire insurance premium rate based on improved combination weighting method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(11):134-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.020
[16]	曹庆奎, 刘开展, 张博文. 用熵计算客观型指标权重的方法[J]. 河北建筑科技学院学报, 2000, 17(3):40-42.
	CAO Qingkui, LIU Kaizhan, ZHANG Bowen. Calculation method of objective index weight by entropy[J]. Journal of Hebei Institute of Architectural Science and Technology, 2000, 17(3):40-42.
[17]	邱菀华. 管理决策熵学及其应用[M]. 北京: 中国电力科学出版社, 2021: 13-51.
[18]	迟国泰, 李刚, 程砚秋. 基于AHP-标准离差的人的全面发展评价模型及其实证研究[J]. 管理学报, 2010, 7(2):301-310.
	CHI Guotai, LI Gang, CHENG Yanqiu. The human all-round development evaluation model based on AHP and standard deviation and empirical study[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2010, 7(2):301-310.
[19]	RAHMAN M, HEIKKILÄ A M, HURME M. Comparison of inherent safety indices in process concept evaluation[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2005, 18(4): 327-334. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.015

评级指标等级指标				本质安全度评估等级
一级	二级	三级	四级	I(VL)	II(L)	III(M)	IV(H)	V(VH)
化工工艺过程本质安全模糊评价指标	化工原料本质安全	主副反应热危险	I₁反应热/(J·g^-1)	(-200,0]	(-600,-200]	(-1 200,-600]	(-3 000, -1200]	(-∞,-3 000]
		主副反应热危险	I₂反应热/(J·g^-1)	(-200,0]	(-600,-200]	(-1 200,-600]	(-3 000, -1200]	(-∞,-3 000]
		火灾爆炸危险	I₃闪点/℃	(120,+∞)	(60,120]	(45,60]	(28,45]	(-273,28]
		火灾爆炸危险	I₄爆炸危险度/%	(0,1)	[1,5)	[5,10)	[10,15)	[15,+∞)
		潜在危险	I₅/10^-6	(100,+∞)	(10,100]	(1,10]	(0.1,1]	(0,0.1]
		潜在危险	I₆设备材料	碳钢	不锈钢	耐腐材料	—	—
	工艺条件本质安全	反应条件危险	I₇温度/℃	(0,70)	[70,150)∪ (-273,0]	[150,300)	[300,600)	[600,+∞)
		反应条件危险	I₈压力/MPa	(0.05,0.5)	(0,0.05]∪ [0.5,2.5)	[2.5,5)	[5,20)	[20,+∞)
		储量及设备危险	I₉储量/t	(0,1)	[1,10)	[10,50)	[50,200)	[200,+∞)
		储量及设备危险	I₁₀种类	处理不可燃、无毒材料设备	塔、泵、热交换器	高危泵、一般反应器、空气冷却器	压缩机、高危反应器	明火炉、火焰加热器

输入参数	分级	代码	等级判据	模糊类型	模糊函数
燃烧性	很低危险	VL	(120,+∞)	梯形	[90 120 +∞ +∞]
	低危险	L	(60,120]	三角形	[52.2 90 120]
	中危险	M	(45,60]	三角形	[36.5 52.2 90]
	高危险	H	(28,45]	三角形	[28 36.5 52.5]
	很高危险	VH	(-273,28]	梯形	[-273 -273 28 36.5]

主副反应热危险		副反应热
主副反应热危险		I级(VL)0	II级(L)1	III级2(M)	IV级(H)3	V级(VH)4
主反应热	I级(VL)0	0(VL)	1(VL-L)	2(L)	3(L-M)	4(M)
	II级(L)1	1(VL-L)	2(L)	3(L-M)	4(M)	5(M-H)
	III级(M)2	2(L)	3(L-M)	4(M)	5(M-H)	6(H)
	IV级(H)3	3(L-M)	4(M)	5(M-H)	6(H)	7(H-VH)
	V级(VH)4	4(M)	5(M-H)	6(H)	7(H-VH)	8(VH)

评价指标	主反应热	副反应热	燃烧性	爆炸性	毒性	腐蚀性	操作温度	操作压力	反应单元物料量	设备装置
ISI中取值范围	0~4	—	0~4	0~4	0~6	0~2	0~4	0~4	0~5	0~4
权重系数	0.108 1	—	0.108 1	0.108 1	0.162 2	0.054 1	0.108 1	0.108 1	0.135 1	0.108 1

工艺	I₁/(J·g^-1)	I₂/(J·g^-1)	I₃/℃	I₄/%	I₅	I₆	I₇/℃	I₈/MPa	I₉/t	I₁₀
丙酮氰醇法	-3 757	—	-188	7	2	2	1 200	0.7	100	4
丙稀法	-883	—	-108	7	0.5	2	354	12	100	3
异丁烯法	-1 659	—	-76.1	7	20	1	395	0.75	100	2
叔丁醇法	-1 656	—	-15	7	20	1	350	0.75	100	2