Evaluation of domino effect in fire accidents in storage  tank area based on graph model

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.014

Abstract

Abstract: In order to quantify the accident risk caused by domino effect of fire accidents in the crude oil storage tank area, a graph-based domino effect evaluation algorithm was developed which considers both the probabilities of primary fire and its probability of subsequent events. Firstly, the accident tree method was used to calculate the expected number of primary fire accidents in the tank. Then the graph model was constructed with the storage tanks in which primary fire occurs as nodes and the probable fire expansion directions as edges. Afterwards, the Bayesian networks presenting the fire expansion of each node were build based on the abovementioned graph model. Finally, the Bayesian network was used to calculate the total expectation of each node's accidents under the domino effect, and the proposed algorithm was applied to evaluate the domino effect in a crude oil tank farm. The results show that compared with the expected value of accidents considering only a single storage tank, the total expected value of accidents in some storage tanks is increasing significantly after considering the domino effect of accidents in surrounding storage tanks, and that the domino effect should not be ignored in accident risk assessment.

Key words: tank fire, domino effect, graph model, Bayesian network, risk assessment

CLC Number:

X932

PAN Shihao, DOU Zhan, LI Yang, SHI Li. Evaluation of domino effect in fire accidents in storage tank area based on graph model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(6): 83-89.

References

[1] KOURNIOTIS S P, KIRANOUDIS C T, MARKATOS N C. Statistical analysis of domino chemical accidents[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2000, 71(1): 239-252.
[2] 萧江, 林佳, 刘金良, 等. 蹈火之歌:“4·22”江苏泰州靖江火灾事故扑救纪实[J]. 中国消防, 2016(12): 24-28.
[3] HEMMATIAN B, ABDOLHAMIDZADEH B, DARBRA R M, et al. The significance of domino effect in chemical accidents[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2014, 29: 30-38.
[4] RENIERS G, COZZANI V. Features of escalation scenarios[M]. Boston: Elsevier, 2013: 30-42.
[5] COZZANI V, SALZANO E. Threshold values for domino effects caused by blast wave interaction with process equipment[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2004, 17(6): 437-447.
[6] COZZANI V, SALZANO E. The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure: part I. probit models[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2004, 107(3): 67-80.
[7] COZZANI V, GUBINELLI G, SALZANO E. Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2006, 129(1/2/3): 1-21.
[8] 陈福真, 张明广, 王妍, 等. 油气储罐区多米诺事故耦合效应风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(10): 111-116.
CHEN Fuzhen, ZHANG Mingguang, WANG Yan, et al. Risk analysis of coupling domino effect in petroliferous tank farm[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(10): 111-116.
[9] CHANG James I, LIN Chengchung. A study of storage tank accidents[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2006, 19(1): 51-59.
[10] NECCI A, ARGENTI F, LANDUCCI G, et al. Accident scenarios triggered by lightning strike on atmospheric storage tanks[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2014, 127: 30-46.
[11] IEC 62305—2, Protection against lightning-part2: risk management [S]. 2010.
[12] GB 50343—2012, 建筑物电子信息系统防雷技术规范[S].
GB 50343-2012,Technical code for protection of building electronic information system against lightning [S].
[13] 胡海燕, 刘宝全, 刘全桢, 等. 浮顶储罐二次密封油气空间放电分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(3): 106-109.
HU Haiyan, LIU Baoquan, LIU Quanzhen, et al. Analysis on second sealing oil and gas space discharge in floating roof tank[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(3): 106-109.
[14] GB/T 50064—2014, 交流电气装置的过电压保护和绝缘配合设计规范[S].
GB/T 50064-2014, Code for design of overvoltage protection and insulation coordination for AC electrical installations[S].
[15] 李征西, 徐思文. 油品储运设计手册[M]. 北京:石油工业出版社, 1997: 337.
[16] 郎需庆, 高鑫, 宫宏, 等. 降低大型浮顶储罐密封圈内油气浓度的研究[J]. 石油天然气学报, 2008, 30(2): 618-619.
[17] DARBRA R M, PALACIOS A, CASAL J. Domino effect in chemical accidents: main features and accident sequences[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 183(1/2/3): 565-573.
[18] 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(1/2/3): 14-30.

Evaluation of domino effect in fire accidents in storage tank area based on graph model

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	LIU Jiahao, YU Yang, ZHANG Zhenxing, YU Jianxing, WANG Weiwei, FU Yiqin. Risk assessment method of risers based on two-dimensional cloud model and BN [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(5): 147-154.
[2]	XIN Baoquan, YU Jianliang, DANG Wenyi, BAI Yongzhong,YU Anfeng. Hazard characteristics of multi-component mixtures from perspective of quantitative risk assessment [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4): 80-85.
[3]	LU Ying, ZHAO Zhipan, JIANG Xuepeng, WU Jindong, FAN Xiaopeng. Dynamic fire risk indexes for stadiums from perspective of big data [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(4): 155-162.
[4]	LU Yi, WU Jiangle, SHAO Shuzhen, SHI Shiliang, ZHOU Rongyi, WANG Wei. Prediction model for road transport accidents of hazardous chemicals based on Bayesian network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3): 174-182.
[5]	CHEN Shengdi, GE Xiaowan, ZHAO Xiaochen, LU Jian, XING Yingying. Normal traffic risk assessment of second-class highways in mountainous areas during operation period [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 176-183.
[6]	HUANG Jie, ZHANG Xianfeng. Risk assessment of regional violent terrorist attacks in southern Xinjiang [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 192-199.
[7]	ZHANG Ge. Pneumoconiosis risk assessment method based on cumulative dust exposure [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 200-206.
[8]	HAN Peng, WANG Jun, WANG Qi, ZHAO Yifei. Study on air traffic control risks of aircraft flight test activities based on flight profile [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 149-156.
[9]	LIU Jichuan, GUI Lei. Urban public safety risk assessment and control measures: a case study on Wuhan city [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 164-171.
[10]	XIN Baoquan, DANG Wenyi, YU Jianliang, WANG Xige, YAN Xingqing, LU Wei. Quantitative evaluation method of blast-resistant and defense loads for VCE in petrochemical process [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 113-118.
[11]	LONG Tengteng, YIN Jiyan, OU Zhaorong, YANG Qiang, LI Yong, WANG Qiuhua. Comprehensive assessment and spatial pattern study on forest fire risk in Yunnan Province [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 167-173.
[12]	HU Yunpin, LI Chao, LI Zongliang, YANG Daohe. IHFACS-BN safety assessment model for large-span steel structure construction and its application [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(8): 147-154.
[13]	PAN Dan, LI Yongzhou, LUO Fan, ZHANG Panke, XIAO Qin. FTA-BN model of risks causation for FOD intrusion in flight area [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 7-13.
[14]	WANG Junwu, WANG Mengyu, LIU Denghui, WU Han, HU Die. Evaluation of falling possibility at height in subway station construction based on HFACS-BN [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 90-98.
[15]	WANG Zhe, KONG Weilei, FANG Danhui, DUAN Zhifei. Research on urban flood and waterlog emergency scenario deductionbased on Bayesian network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 182-188.