页岩气集输站场撬装设备失效后果面积计算方法

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.1190

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为准确评估页岩气集输站场撬装设备组件发生连锁失效的后果,避免在后果面积计算中因忽视连锁效应、低估或高估后果危害性、忽视失效后果面积重叠计算等问题,首先,在美国石油协会(API)581标准的基础上,考虑可能存在的多米诺场景,建立失效后果面积加权计算模型;然后,引入圆弧并面积算法,消除失效后果面积重叠计算的影响,并结合设备失效概率与多米诺场景概率确定连锁效应加权系数,形成撬装设备失效后果面积计算方法与计算步骤;最后,以某页岩气集输站场吸收撬为例,计算其失效后果面积。结果表明:考虑失效后果重叠计算得到的失效后果面积为759.48 m²,常规失效后果计算方法对后果低估了38.5%,未消除后果重叠的常用多米诺方法对后果高估了62.7%,考虑失效后果面积重叠计算可以帮助合理评估页岩气集输站场撬装设备组件发生连锁失效的后果面积。

关键词: 页岩气, 集输站场, 撬装设备, 连锁失效, 失效后果, 计算方法, 多米诺效应

Abstract:

In order to accurately assess the consequences of the occurrence of chain failures of skid-mounted equipment components in shale gas gathering and transportation station, the calculations study of the consequence area was conducted to avoid the neglecting the chain effects, underestimating or overestimating the consequence hazards, and neglecting the overlapping of failure consequences. Firstly, based on American Petroleum Institute (API) 581 standard, a weighted failure consequence area calculation method was established by considering the possible existence of domino scenarios. Then, the arc-area algorithm was introduced to eliminate the influence of overlapping failure consequences. Combining the probability of equipment failure with the probability of domino scenarios, the weighting coefficients of the chain effect was determine to form the solution method and the steps of the calculation of the consequences area of skid-mounted equipment failure. Finally, the failure consequences area of a shale gas gathering station absorption skid was calculated as an example. The results show that the failure consequences area calculated by considering the overlap of failure consequences is 759.48 m², and the conventional failure consequence calculation method underestimates the consequences by 38.5%. The commonly used domino method, which does not eliminate the overlap of consequences, overestimates the consequences by 62.7%. Considering the overlap of failure consequences area can help to reasonably assess the area of the consequences of the chain failures of the skid-mounted components of a shale gas gathering and transportation station.

Key words: shale gas, gathering and transportation station, skid-mounted equipment, cascading failure, failure consequence, calculation method, domino effect

吴瑕, 孙浩, 宋长景. 页岩气集输站场撬装设备失效后果面积计算方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(10): 120-128.

WU Xia, SUN Hao, SONG Changjing. Calculation method of failure consequence area of skid-mounted equipment in gathering and transportation station of shale gas[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 120-128.

图/表 14

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

图4

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

图5

图6

表8

参考文献 29

[1]	廖柯熹, 彭浩, 何国玺, 等. 中国页岩气田地面工程技术研究进展[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2020, 20(28): 11 400-11 412.
	LIAO Kexi, PENG Hao, HE Guoxi, et al. Progress on ground engineering technology of shale gas field in China[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2020, 20(28): 11 400-11 412.
[2]	刘明明, 张洪杰, 朱琳, 等. 基于多米诺的橇装天然气处理厂事故后果研究[J]. 西南石油大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 43(6): 191-200.
	LIU Mingming, ZHANG Hongjie, ZHU Lin, et al. Studty on accident consequence of skid mounted natural gas treatment plant based on domino[J]. Journal of Southwest Petroleum University: Science & Technology Edition, 2021, 43(6): 191-200.
[3]	王金江, 王舒辉, 张兴, 等. 基于RBI技术的储气库分离器风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 21-27. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.02.004
	WANG Jinjiang, WANG Shuhui, ZHANG Xing, et al. Risk analysis of gas storage separator based on RBI technology[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(2): 21-27. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.02.004
[4]	周夏伊, 刘慧, 陈林, 等. 油气集输站场失效可能性定量评价方法研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(6): 167-171.
	ZHOU Xiayi, LIU Hui, CHEN Lin, et al. Study on quantitative evaluation method for failure possibility of oil and gas gathering and transportation station[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(6): 167-171.
[5]	KHAN F I, ABBASI S A. Major accidents in process industries and an analysis of causes and consequences[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1999, 12(5): 361-378. doi: 10.1016/S0950-4230(98)00062-X
[6]	沈锴欣, 贺治超, 翁文国. 化工多米诺事故中物理效应间的耦合作用[J]. 清华大学学报: 自然科学版, 2022, 62(10): 1559-1570.
	SHEN Kaixin, HE Zhichao, WENG Wenguo. Synergistic physical effects of domino accidents in the chemical industry[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University: Natural Science Edition, 2022, 62(10): 1559-1570.
[7]	陈国华, 贾梅生, 黄庭枫. 化工园区安全保障体系探究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2013, 13(3): 207-212.
	CHEN Guohua, JIA Meisheng, HUANG Tingfeng. Research on safety guarantee system for chemical industrial parks[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2013, 13(3): 207-212.
[8]	赵东风, 王晓媛. 油库火灾爆炸事故多米诺效应定量评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(6): 104-109.
	ZHAO Dongfeng, WANG Xiaoyuan. Quantitative assessment of fire & explosion accient of oil storage caused by domino effect[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2008, 18(6): 104-109.
[9]	王艳华, 戴雪松, 鲜鱼小东, 等. 化学工业重大事故的多米诺效应分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(5): 129-136.
	WANG Yanhua, DAI Xuesong, XIANYU Xiaodong, et al. Analysis on domino effect of major accidents in chemical industry[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2008, 18(5): 129-136.
[10]	黄亮亮, 姚安林, 魏沁汝, 等. 基于RBI与多米诺效应的输气站场设备定量风险评价[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2014, 10(5): 90-94.
	HUANG Liangliang, YAO Anlin, WEI Qinru, et al. Quantitative risk assessment of facilities in gas transmission station based on RBI and domino effect[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2014, 10(5): 90-94.
[11]	王勇, 郑鹤. 长宁页岩气区块集输站场风险评价技术研究[J]. 石油与天然气化工, 2021, 50(3): 134-138.
	WANG Yong, ZHENG He. Study on risk assessment technology of gathering and transportation station in Changning shale gas block[J]. Chemical Engineering of Oil & Gas, 2021, 50(3): 134-138.
[12]	ZHANG Laobing, LANDUCCI G, RENIERS G, et al. DAMS: a model to assess domino effects by using agent-based modeling and simulation[J]. Risk Analysis, 2018, 38(8): 1585-1600. doi: 10.1111/risa.12955 pmid: 29266430
[13]	张永强, 相艳景, 毛星, 等. 多米诺效应的风险分析方法[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2008, 8(6): 152-159.
	ZHANG Yongqiang, XIANG Yanjing, MAO Xing, et al. Review on the quantitative analysis of the domino effect risk assessment[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2008, 8(6): 152-159.
[14]	DARBRA R M, PALACIOS A, CASAL J. Domino effect in chemical accidents: main features and accident sequences[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 183(1): 565-573. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.061
[15]	COZZANI V, GUBINELLI G, ANTONIONI G, et al. The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005, 127(1): 14-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.003
[16]	COZZANI V, ANTONIONI G, LANDUCCI G, et al. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2014, 28: 10-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2013.07.009
[17]	RENIERS G. An external domino effects investment approach to improve cross-plant safety within chemical clusters[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 177(1): 167-174. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.12.013
[18]	KADRI F, CHÂTELET E, CHEN G. Method for quantitative assessment of the domino effect in industrial sites[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2013, 91(6): 452-462. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.010
[19]	API581, Risk-based inspection technology[S]. 2016.
[20]	王钲旋, 庞云阶. 动态计算圆弧并面积的一个算法[J]. 计算机辅助设计与图形学学报, 1995, 7(3): 161-165.
	WANG Zhengxuan, PANG Yunjie. An algorithm for dynamic computing the area of union of circular arcs[J]. Journal of Computer-Aided Design and Computer Graphics, 1995, 7(3): 161-165.
[21]	陈建勋, 马恒太. 动态计算圆弧并面积的一个新算法[J]. 计算机辅助设计与图形学学报, 1998, 10(3): 221-226.
	CHEN Jianxun, MA Hengtai. A new algorithm for dynamic computing the area of union of circular arcs[J]. Journal of Computer-Aided Design and Computer Graphics, 1998, 10(3): 221-226.
[22]	GEORGE P G, RENJITH V R. Bayesian estimation and consequence modelling of deliberately induced domino effects in process facilities[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2021, 69:DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104340.
[23]	NI Zijian, WANG Yuanzhang, YIN Zhigang. Relative risk model for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry[J]. Safety Science, 2016, 87: 156-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.026
[24]	CHEN Fuzhen, ZHANG Mingguang, SONG Jian, et al. Risk analysis on domino effect caused by pool fire in petroliferous tank farm[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2018, 211: 46-54. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.12.136
[25]	王天瑜, 吕辰, 胡馨声, 等. 天然气管道蒸气云爆炸事故后果模拟研究[J]. 煤炭技术, 2017, 36(7): 295-297.
	WANG Tianyu, LYU Chen, HU Xinsheng, et al. Simulation on accident consequences of vapor cloud explosion of natural gas pipelines[J]. Coal Technology, 2017, 36(7): 295-297. doi: 10.1016/0257-8972(88)90159-4
[26]	JO Y D, AHN B J. A method of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005, 123(1/2/3): 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.01.034
[27]	COZZANI V, ANTONIONI G, SPADONI G. Quantitative assessment of domino scenarios by a GIS-based software tool[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process IAndustries, 2006, 19(5): 463-477.
[28]	PIETERSEN C M. Analysis of the LPG-disaster in Mexico city[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 1988, 20: 85-107. doi: 10.1016/0304-3894(88)87008-0
[29]	SARVESTANI K, AHMADI O, ALENJAREGHI M J. LPG storage tank accidents: initiating events, causes, scenarios, and consequences[J]. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 2021, 21(4): 1305-1314. doi: 10.1007/s11668-021-01174-y

失效后果类型	VCE	闪火	JF	安全泄放	火球
失效后果概率	0.050	0.150	0.196	0.600	0.004
事故占比/%	12.5	37.5	49.0	—	1.0

组件编号	几何中心	容积/m³	运行压力/Pa
δ1	(1.6,1.5)	16.0	4×10⁶
δ2	(5.9,1.5)	3.9	4×10⁶
δ3	(9.7,1.5)	5.9	4×10⁶

组件编号	初始失效后果面积/m²
δ1	1 120
δ2	467
δ3	599

组件编号	与δ2距离/m	超压/Pa	失效概率P_e
δ1	4.3	3.43×10⁶	1
δ3	3.8	4.81×10⁶	1

组件编号	与δ2距离/m	热辐射/ (kW·m^-2)	失效概率P_f
δ1	4.3	2.28×10⁵	1
δ3	3.8	2.92×10⁵	1