我国公路隧道火灾社会风险可接受标准研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.0687

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 121-127.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.0687

我国公路隧道火灾社会风险可接受标准研究

王启睿¹^,²(), 姜学鹏¹^,²^,^**(), 薛光桥³, 钱新博²

¹ 武汉科技大学资源与环境工程学院,湖北武汉 430081
² 武汉科技大学安全与应急研究院,湖北武汉 430081
³ 中铁第四勘察设计院集团有限公司,湖北武汉 430063

收稿日期:2023-10-23 修回日期:2024-01-27 出版日期:2024-04-28
通讯作者:
**姜学鹏(1976—),男,山东平度人,博士,教授,博士生导师,主要从事隧道火灾动力学、城市公共安全、新型高效洁净灭火等方面的研究。E-mail: jxp5276@126.com。
作者简介:
王启睿 (1996—),男,吉林四平人,博士研究生,研究方向为隧道及地下空间火灾风险评估与应急救援。E-mail: wangqr12511@wust.edu.cn。
薛光桥正高级工程师
钱新博副教授
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(51874213); 湖北省重点研发计划(2020BCB072)

Study on social risk acceptance criteria of road tunnel fire in China

WANG Qirui¹^,²(), JIANG Xuepeng¹^,²^,^**(), XUE Guangqiao³, QIAN Xinbo²

¹ School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan Hubei 430081, China
² Institute of Safety and Emergency, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan Hubei 430081, China
³ China Railway Siyuan Survey and Design Group Co., Ltd., Wuhan Hubei 430063, China

Received:2023-10-23 Revised:2024-01-27 Published:2024-04-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为辅助隧道火灾风险管理及决策,提出隧道火灾社会风险可接受标准定义和制定原则;比较国外隧道风险相关标准,统计分析我国2000—2020年间隧道火灾死亡事故案例,开展社会公众隧道火灾风险认知调查;基于F/N曲线方法,建立适用于我国的隧道火灾社会风险可接受标准,明确事故频率和后果的可接受临界阈值。结果表明:公众对于隧道火灾事故风险现状持可容忍态度;我国隧道火灾死亡事故最大可接受频率设定为10^-5/(km·a),最大可容忍频率设定为10^-4/(km·a)。

关键词: 隧道火灾, 社会风险标准, 可接受标准, 风险认知, F/N曲线

Abstract:

In order to assist tunnel fire risk management and decision-making, the definition and principles of social risk acceptance criteria for road tunnel fire were established. Based on a statistical analysis of tunnel fire fatalities in China from 2000 to 2020 and a survey of public perceptions of tunnel fire risk, social risk acceptance criteria of tunnel fires in China was developed by the F/N curve method, and the acceptance critical limits for accident frequency and consequences were defined. The results show that the public has a tolerable attitude towards the current situation of tunnel fire accident risk. The maximum acceptable frequency of tunnel fire fatalities in China is set at 10^-5/(km·a), and the maximum tolerable frequency is set at 10^-4/(km·a).

Key words: tunnel fire, social risk criteria, acceptance criteria, risk perception, F/N curve

中图分类号:

X915.2安全社会学

王启睿, 姜学鹏, 薛光桥, 钱新博. 我国公路隧道火灾社会风险可接受标准研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 121-127.

WANG Qirui, JIANG Xuepeng, XUE Guangqiao, QIAN Xinbo. Study on social risk acceptance criteria of road tunnel fire in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 121-127.

图/表 11

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

图3

图4

图5

表4

图6

图7

参考文献 27

[1]	中华人民共和国交通运输部. 2021年交通运输行业发展统计公报[EB/OL]. (2022-05-24). https://xxgk.mot.gov.cn/2020/jigou/zhghs/202205/t20220524_3656659.html.
[2]	汪金辉, 焦宇, 刘江虹, 等. 参数不确定性对隧道火灾人员安全时间的影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(12): 46-51.
	WANG Jinhui, JIAO Yu, LIU Jianghong, et al. Effect of parameter uncertainty on available time under tunnel fire[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(12): 46-51.
[3]	CAROLY S, KOUABENAN D R, GANDIT M. Analysis of danger management by highway users confronted with a tunnel fire[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 60:35-46.
[4]	姜学鹏, 谢智云, 于思维, 等. 水下V形坡隧道烟气温度纵向衰减研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(9):70-76. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.011
	JIANG Xuepeng, XIE Zhiyun, YU Siwei, et al. Study on longitudinal decay of flue gas temperature in underwater V-shaped slope tunnels[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(9):70-76. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.011
[5]	MARSZAL E M. Tolerable risk guidelines[J]. Isa Transactions, 2001, 40(4):391-399. pmid: 11577826
[6]	Permanent International Association of Road Congress. Current practice for risk evaluation for road tunnels[R], 2013.
[7]	MENG Qiang, QU Xiaobo, YONG Kumthong, et al. QRA model-based risk impact analysis of traffic flow in urban road tunnels[J]. Risk Analysis An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(12):1872-1882.
[8]	BENEKOS I, DIAMANTIDIS D. On risk assessment and risk acceptance of dangerous goods transportation through road tunnels in Greece[J]. Safety Science, 2017, 91:1-10.
[9]	CALIENDO C, GUGLIELMO M. Quantitative risk analysis on the transport of dangerous goods through a bi-directional road tunnel[J]. Risk Analysis, 2017, 37(1):116-129. doi: 10.1111/risa.12594 pmid: 26970505
[10]	NTZEREMES P, KIRYTOPOULOS K. Evaluating the role of risk assessment for road tunnel fire safety: a comparative review within the EU[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2019, 6(3):282-296.
[11]	张通, 闫治国, 郭超. 基于FTA的隧道火灾安全社会风险接受准则[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2018, 55(增2):633-639.
	ZHANG Tong, YAN Zhiguo, GUO Chao. Acceptance criteria of social risks for tunnel fires based on FTA method[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2018, 55(S2):633-639.
[12]	赵峰. 公路隧道运营风险评估及火灾逃生研究[D]. 西安: 长安大学, 2010.
	ZHAO Feng. Study on operating risk assessment and fire evacuation for road tunnel[D]. Xi'an: Chang'an University, 2010.
[13]	BOTTELBERGHS P H. Risk analysis and safety policy developments in the Netherlands[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000, 71(1/2/3):59-84.
[14]	于汐, 薄景山, 唐彦东. 重大岩土工程可接受风险标准研究[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2018, 27(3):56-67.
	YU Xi, BO Jingshan, TANG Yandong. Study on risk acceptance criteria of major geotechnical project[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2018, 27(3):56-67.
[15]	张舒, 李夏林, 吴超, 等. 我国煤矿可接受风险标准研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(1):158-164.
	ZHANG Shu, LI Xialin, WU Chao, et al. Study on acceptable risk criteria of coal industry in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(1):158-164.
[16]	ABRAHAMSEN E B, AVEN T. Why risk acceptance criteria need to be defined by the authorities and not the industry?[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2012, 105:47-50.
[17]	HARTFORD D. Legal framework considerations in the development of risk acceptance criteria[J]. Structural Safety, 2009, 31(2):118-123.
[18]	VANEM E. Ethics and fundamental principles of risk acceptance criteria[J]. Safety Science, 2012, 50:958-967.
[19]	JONKMAN S N, GELDER P, 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
[20]	汪金辉, 周雨, 庄磊, 等. 全球客船的社会风险可接受标准及应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(9):195-201.
	WANG Jinhui, ZHOU Yu, ZHUANG Lei, et al. Social risk acceptance criteria of global passenger ships and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(9):195-201.
[21]	Health and Safety Executive. Reducing risks: protecting people-HSE's decision making process[R], 2001.
[22]	Directive 2004/54/EC, On minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European road network[S].
[23]	Permanent International Association of Road Congress. Risk analysis for road tunnels[R], 2008
[24]	REN Rui, ZHOU Hui, HU Zhao, et al. Statistical analysis of fire accidents in Chinese highway tunnels 2000-2016[J]. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 83:452-460.
[25]	赖金星, 周慧, 程飞, 等. 公路隧道火灾事故统计分析及防灾减灾对策[J]. 隧道建设, 2017, 37(4):409-415.
	LAI Jinxing, ZHOU Hui, CHENG Fei, et al. Statistical analysis of fire accidents in highway tunnels and countermeasures for disaster prevention and reduction[J]. Tunnel Construction, 2017, 37(4):409-415.
[26]	程方明, 邵杰, 苏畅, 等. 风险感知对非适应性应急疏散行为的影响[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2023, 19(1):176-182.
	CHENG Fangming, SHAO Jie, SU Chang, et al. Influence of risk perception on non-adaptive emergency evacuation behavior[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2023, 19(1):176-182.
[27]	梁力元. 公路长隧道通行货车风险分析:以雪山隧道为例[D]. 桃园: 台湾中央大学, 2006.
	LIANG Liyuan. Truck passing through the long road tunnel risk analysis: a case study of Hsuehshan tunnel[D]. Taoyuan: Taiwan Central University, 2006.

时间段	死亡频率/ (km·a)^-1	死亡事故频率/ (km·a)^-1
2000—2005年	0.002 26	1.8×10^-4
2006—2010年	0.001 62	1.8×10^-4
2011—2015年	0.001 00	1.0×10^-4
2016—2020年	0.000 36	6.0×10^-5

问卷维度	题目数	信度检验结果
隧道火灾事故频率认知调查	5	0.732
隧道火灾事故后果认知调查	3	0.748
隧道火灾风险可接受程度测量	4	0.852

因子	效度检验结果
KMO	0.788
Bartlett球形值	1 351.175
p	0.00

隧道火灾死亡事故总体可接受频率		重大及以上隧道火灾事故可接受频率		特别重大隧道火灾事故可接受频率
频率/a^-1	占比/%	频率/a^-1	占比/%	频率/a^-1	占比/%
2	6.80	[0.33,1]	8.25	[0.1,0.2]	11.17
1	23.79	[0.2,0.33)	16.99	[0.05,0.1)	14.08
[0.33,1)	21.36	[0.1,0.2)	19.42	[0.02,0.05)	25.73
[0.2,0.33)	18.93	[0.05,0.1)	25.73	[0.01,0.02)	23.79
<0.2	29.13	<0.05	29.61	<0.01	25.24

我国公路隧道火灾社会风险可接受标准研究

Study on social risk acceptance criteria of road tunnel fire in China

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 11

参考文献 27

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	何路, 张晓锦, 王东伟, 朱国庆, 袁狄平, 徐志胜. 隧道火灾集中排烟系统排热效率预测方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7): 113-120.
[2]	杜涛, 李萍, 王雨, 薛宪凯. 隧道火灾烟气温度及蔓延速度衰减特性[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2): 140-145.
[3]	张孝春, 陈林杰, 周舸尧, 张兆民, 魏瑞超, 吴斌斌. 耦合烟气与蒙特卡罗的隧道火灾疏散及其优化[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(12): 167-175.
[4]	张鹏, 肖博文, 宋文琦, 刘为. 城镇燃气管道个人及社会风险可接受标准研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(10): 1-7.
[5]	徐童, 唐飞, 何清. 隧道内贴壁火顶棚射流温度及火焰特性研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(7): 93-97.
[6]	阳东, 李萍. 抑制倾斜隧道烟气流动热压主导模式的临界风压[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(5): 41-47.
[7]	杨宇轩, 程辉航, 龙增, 陈俊沣, 刘畅, 钟茂华. 阻塞效应对隧道火灾烟气温度影响试验研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(10): 135-141.
[8]	陶亮亮, 曾艳华, 刘振撼, 彭俊钦, 周小涵. 空气幕对地铁隧道火灾温度及流场的影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(7): 157-163.
[9]	姜学鹏, 陈欣格, 郭昆. 侧部点式排烟隧道火灾临界风速研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 105-111.
[10]	陶亮亮, 王浩然, 刘振撼, 周小涵, 曾艳华. 水幕排烟系统对烟气控制及排烟效率的影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2): 120-126.
[11]	王钟宽, 粟萌萌, 黄欣, 郑静如, 李子豪, 王国元. 不同坡度隧道火灾自熄现象试验研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1): 186-191.
[12]	杨小龙, 张玉春, 高云骥, 靳开颜, 李智胜, 李涛. 公路隧道火灾烟气层高度判定方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(4): 147-153.
[13]	马砺, 李超华, 张鹏宇, 邱贤宗, 赵鑫. 封堵比例对隧道火灾顶棚温度分布的影响[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 79-85.
[14]	姜学鹏, 谢智云, 于思维, 廖湘娟. 水下V形坡隧道烟气温度纵向衰减研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(9): 70-76.
[15]	孙少华, 程家骥, 丛北华, 杨万宝. 强制通风对隧道起火影响的全尺寸试验研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(10): 56-61.