Hazard characteristics of multi-component mixtures from perspective of quantitative risk assessment

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.012

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve prediction accuracy of multi-component mixture risks, hazard characteristics of three typical mixtures of high SNG, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and gasoline were studied based on risk theory. ESPD of 17 kinds of scenarios was calculated according to multi-component model theory and mixture characteristics. Then, difference between pure component model and multi-component one in QRA was compared and analyzed, and an optimal simplified risk prediction model for multi-component mixtures was proposed. The results show that for SNG, ESPD of pure component is underestimated by 19.9%-61.4% compared with the multi-component. In the case of LPG, it is underestimated by 13.6%-26.0% to adopt substitution of pure propane, but overestimated by 43.3%-273.5% to adopt "propane + butane" substitution. Moreover, for gasoline, it is overestimated by 2%-9.7% for use of n-hexane, but underestimated by 78.8%-95.3% for that of octane. A method of equating a multi-component mixture to one or more pure substances may significantly underestimate or overestimate risks of mixtures, and it is suggested to adopt a two-component mixed model in risk assessment.

Key words: multi-component mixtures, quantitative risk assessment (QRA), high sulfur natural gas (SNG), external safety protection distance (ESPD), thermodynamic properties

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.

Figures/Tables 11

Tab.1

Tab.2

Leakage hole size and frequency

泄漏孔径/mm	泄漏频率/(次·a^-1)
5	5.91×1 $0 - 4$
25	1.02×10^-4
100	2.67×10^-5
300	2.37×1 $0 - 5$

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 15

[1]	王志荣, 孙培培, 唐振华, 等. 密闭容器甲烷-空气混合物爆炸的尺寸效应[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1): 60-66. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.009
	WANG Zhirong, SUN Peipei, TANG Zhenhua, et al. Size effect of methane-air mixture explosion in closed vessel[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(1): 60-66. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.009
[2]	JÄKEL C, KELM S, VERFONDERN K, et al. Validation of a 3D multiphase-multicomponent CFD model for accidental liquid and gaseous hydrogen releases[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(17): 8807-8818. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.10.024
[3]	JIA Wenlong, BAN Jiuqing, LIANG Fangjian, et al. A new homogeneous non-equilibrium model to compute vapor-liquid two-phase critical pressure ratios of multicomponent hydrocarbon mixtures[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 68(11): DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104338. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104338
[4]	PENG Dingyu, ROBINSON D B. New two-constant equation of state[J]. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 1976, 15(1): 3069-3078.
[5]	FRANC$\dot{U}$ J, MIKYŠKA J. An alternative model of multicomponent diffusion based on a combination of the Maxwell-Stefan theory and continuum mechanics[J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2020, 400(1): DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108962. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.108962
[6]	FILLO A J, SCHLUP J, BEARDSELL G, et al. A fast, low-memory, and stable algorithm for implementing multicomponent transport in direct numerical simulations[J]. Journal of Computational Physics, 2020, 406(4): DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.109185. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.109185
[7]	YANG W, XIA J, WANG X, et al. Predicting evaporation dynamics of a multicomponent gasoline/ethanol droplet and spray using non-ideal vapour-liquid equilibrium models[J]. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 2021, 168(4): DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120876. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2020.120876
[8]	王铭明, 于浩, 汪晨, 等. 多组分气体混合物在煤的孔隙中运动特性研究[J]. 煤炭科学技术, 2020, 48(3): 162-166.
	WANG Mingming, YU Hao, WANG Chen, et al. Study on transport characteristics of multi-component gaseous mixtures through coal pore[J]. Coal Science and Technology, 2020, 48 (3): 162-166.
[9]	胡百中, 陈序, 何泊龙, 等. 含硫天然气集输管道气体泄漏扩散三维数值模拟[J]. 重庆科技学院学报:自然科学版, 2019, 21(2): 21-25, 90.
	HU Baizhong, CHEN Xu, HE Bolong, et al. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of gas leakage and diffusion in sulfur natural gas gathering[J]. Journal of Chongqing University of Science and Technology:Natural Sciences Edition, 2019, 21(2): 21-25, 90.
[10]	DAVID W J, JEFFREY D M. The importance of multiphase and multicomponent modeling in consequence and risk analysis[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 104(3): 51-64. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3894(03)00234-6
[11]	辛保泉, 喻健良, 党文义, 等. 复杂地形高含硫天然气风洞扩散实验及安全防护距离[J]. 天然气工业, 2020, 40(11): 149-158.
	XIN Baoquan, YU Jianliang, DANG Wenyi, et al. Wind tunnel dispersion experiments and safety protection distances of high sulfur natural gas in complex terrains[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2020, 40 (11): 149-158.
[12]	International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Process release frequencies[R], 2010.
[13]	任乐峰, 孟祥坤, 陈国明. 滩海油气管道泄漏风险演化与评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1): 159-164. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.01.023
	REN Lefeng, MENG Xiangkun, CHEN Guoming. Risk evolution and evaluation for oil and gas leakage of pipeline in shallow sea[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31 (1): 159-164.
[14]	GB 36894—2018, 危险化学品生产装置和储存设施风险基准[S].
	GB 36894-2018, Risk criteria for hazardous chemicals production unit and storage installations[S].
[15]	辛保泉, 党文义, 喻健良, 等. 石化过程蒸气云爆炸抗爆设防荷载定量评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 113-118. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.016
	XIN Baoquan, DANG Wenyi, YU Jianliang, et al. Quantitative evaluation method of blast-resistant and defense loads for VCE in petrochemical process[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 113-118. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.016

组分	S₁	S₂	S₃	S₄
CH₄	75	75	75	75
H₂S	25	15	25	15
CO₂	0	10	0	10

组分	S₅	S₆	S₇	S₈	S₉	S₁₀
C₃H₈	100	0	50	50	40	40
C₄H₁₀	0	100	50	50	40	40
C₃H₆	0	0	0	0	20	10
C₄H₈	0	0	0	0	0	10

组分	S₁₁	S₁₂	S₁₃	S₁₄	S₁₅	S₁₆	S₁₇
C₅H₁₂	100	0	0	0	50	30	30
C₆H₁₄	0	100	0	0	50	30	20
C₇H₁₆	0	0	100	0	0	40	20
C₈H₁₈	0	0	0	100	0	0	30

物质	组分或场景	层流燃烧速度/ (m·s^-1)	燃烧热/(J·kmol^-1)	燃烧下限	燃烧上限	临界温度/K	临界压力/MPa
SNG	CH₄	0.45	8.03×10⁸	0.044	0.165	191.55	4.6
	H₂S	0.83	5.18×10⁸	0.043	0	374.53	8.96
	CO₂	—	—	—	—	305.21	7.38
	S₃	0.51	7.30×10⁸	0.044	0.196	237.3	5.69
	S₄	0.487	6.80×10⁸	0.049	0.205	230.36	5.53
LPG	S₅	0.464	2.04×10⁹	0.02	0.095	370.83	4.25
	S₆	0.512	1.93×10⁹	0.02	0.11	365.9	4.6
	C₄H₁₀	0.52	2.66×10⁹	0.015	0.09	426.12	3.8
	C₄H₈	0.52	2.54×10⁹	0.016	0.093	420.5	4.02
	S₈	0.49	2.35×10⁹	0.017	0.092 4	398.475	4.022
	S₉	0.495	2.27×10⁹	0.018	0.095 5	391.96	4.138
	S₁₀	0.495	2.33×10⁹	0.017	0.094	397.42	4.08
汽油	S₁₁	0.52	3.24×10⁹	0.013	0.08	470.7	3.37
	S₁₂	0.52	3.86×10⁹	0.011	0.076 8	508.6	3.025
	S₁₃	0.52	4.46×10⁹	0.01	0.07	541.2	2.74
	S₁₄	0.52	5.07×10⁹	0.008	0.065	569.7	2.49
	S₁₅	0.52	4.16×10⁹	0.01	0.072	520.2	2.93
	S₁₆	0.52	4.04×10⁹	0.01	0.073 7	515.56	2.97
	S₁₇	0.52	4.10×10⁹	0.01	0.072 9	519.23	2.94

物质	场景	γ	ρ_L / (kmol·m^-3)	ρ_V / (kmol·m^-3)	H_V / (J·mol^-1)	H_L/ (J·kmol^-1)	S/ (J·kmol^-1·K^-1)
SNG	S₃	1.310	4.393	4.870	7.12×10⁵	-9.16×10⁶	-1.62×10⁵
SNG	S₄	1.297	4.293	4.293	7.19×10⁵	-1.37×10⁶	-1.29×10⁵
LPG	S₈	1.106	10.931	1.024	4.32×10⁵	-1.83×10⁷	-1.64×10⁵
	S₉	1.112	11.194	0.898	4.10×10⁵	-1.76×10⁷	-1.60×10⁵
	S₁₀	1.109	11.069	0.975	4.21×10⁵	-1.82×10⁷	-1.59×10⁵
汽油	S₁₅	1.052	6.833	6.833	5.63×10⁶	-2.62×10⁷	-1.62×10⁵
	S₁₆	1.054	7.033	7.033	5.46×10⁶	-2.55×10⁷	-1.58×10⁵
	S₁₇	1.053	6.952	6.952	5.55×10⁶	-2.58×10⁷	-1.56×10⁵