Resilience assessment of chemical industry parks based on comprehensive weighting-RSR method

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.S1.2454

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to accurately improve the resilience, recovery, and adaptability of a chemical industry park in the face of uncertainties, a chemical industry park was taken as an example to build a resilience assessment model. Firstly, based on the public safety triangle theory, an assessment system based on the risk of disaster disturbance factors, the vulnerability of disaster-bearing bodies, and the ability of disaster prevention and mitigation was established. The index weight was given by the subjective and objective combination of fuzzy interval scoring and CRITIC method, and the RSR method was introduced to rank the weighted index elements, so as to explore the resilience and weak points of the park in the face of disaster impact. Finally, the overall resilience was graded according to the RSR method. The results show that the overall resilience level of the park is in the third grade. The resilience level is high, and the safety state is good. The proposed method is effective, accurate, and scientific, and it is helpful to improve the resilience level of chemical industry parks and strengthen the construction of disaster prevention and reduction of chemical industry parks.

Key words: integrated empowerment, CRITIC method, rank-sum ratio method (RSR), chemical industry parks, resilience

YUE Wenjing, YUAN Bihe, SU Shuyan, YANG Man, YANG Jiaqi, WEN Xueli. Resilience assessment of chemical industry parks based on comprehensive weighting-RSR method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1): 58-63.

Figures/Tables 5

Tab.1

Resilience assessment index system of chemical industry park

目标层	准则层	要素层	划分依据
目标层	准则层	要素层	Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级
化工园区韧性评估表化工园区韧性评估表	灾害扰动因子危险度 G₁	区域自然灾害致灾人数 G₁₁/万	[1 000, +∞)	[500, 1 000)	[250, 500)	[0, 250)
		区域自然灾害直接经济损失G₁₂/万	[100, +∞)	[50, 100)	[25, 50)	[0, 25)
		化工事故频率G₁₃/年	[1 000, +∞)	[500, 1 000)	[250, 500)	[0, 250)
		化工事故伤亡人数G₁₄/人	[2 000, +∞)	[1 500, 2 000)	[1 000, 1 500)	[0, 1 000)
	承灾体脆弱性 G₂	人员心理G₂₁	慌乱紧张, 失去理智	较为紧张, 勉强应对	有些紧张, 可以应对	从容不迫, 较好解决
		园区内工人暴露度G₂₂/h	[8, +∞)	[6, 8)	[4, 6)	[0, 4)
		安全意识与知识G₂₃	安全意识淡薄, 安全知识储备少	安全意识中等, 安全知识储备中等	安全意识较强, 安全知识储备较多	安全意识强, 安全知识储备多
		机器使用与维护G₂₄	季度检查	月检	周检	日检
		安全防范间距G₂₅/m	[0, 200)	[200, 500)	[500, 1 000)	[1 000, +∞)
			Ⅰ级	Ⅱ级	Ⅲ级	Ⅳ级
	承灾体脆弱性 G₂	园区内资产情况G₂₆/万	[5 000, +∞)	[1 000, 5 000)	[500, 1 000)	[0, 500)
		物料易燃易爆情况G₂₇	物料自身极其易燃易爆	物料自身较为易燃易爆	物料在催化下可以较为易燃易爆	物料不易燃易爆
		危化品储存量G₂₈	超过一昼夜生产用量	接近一昼夜生产用量但未超过	较小于一昼夜生产用量	远小于一昼夜生产用量
	防灾减灾能力 G₃	重大危险源管控情况G₃₁	监管不当,存在大量疏忽	监管薄弱, 存在漏洞	监管存在薄弱,但总体符合监管要求	监管得当
		安全规章制度G₃₂	安全规章制度存在大量不足	安全规章制度存在少量不足	安全规章制度较为完备	安全规章制度完备
		安全培训G₃₃	从未对员工进行消防安全知识及制度培训	偶尔对员工进行消防安全知识及制度培训,员工学习状态不佳	对员工定期进行消防安全知识及制度培训,员工反映较好	定期对员工进行消防安全知识及制度培训, 员工反映良好
		应急演练G₃₄	一次/年	一次/半年	一次/季度	一次/月

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.1

References 10

[1]	王龙帅, 吴洁, 王莹, 等. 基于AHP-模糊综合评价法的化工园区应急能力评估[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2022, 48(6): 1-5.
	WANG Longshuai, WU Jie, WANG Ying, et al. Emergency response capability assessment of chemical industrial park based on AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2022, 48(6): 1-5.
[2]	陈长坤, 陈以琴, 施波, 等. 雨洪灾害情境下城市韧性评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(4): 1-6. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.04.001
	CHEN Changkun, CHEN Yiqin, SHI Bo, et al. A model for evaluating urban resilience to rainstorm flood disasters[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(4): 1-6. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.04.001
[3]	刘大山, 陈晓春, 多英全, 等. 化工园区地震Na-Tech事件快速风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2): 127-134. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.018
	LIU Dashan, CHEN Xiaochun, DUO Yingquan, et al. Rapid risk assessment method for chemical industry park earthquake Na-Tech event[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(2): 127-134. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.018
[4]	肖振航, 周德红, 李维东, 等. 基于云模型的化工园区安全风险评估[J]. 武汉工程大学学报, 2022, 44(1): 112-118.
	XIAO Zhenhang, ZHOU Dehong, LI Weidong, et al. Safety risk assessment of chemical industry park based on cloud model[J]. Journal of Wuhan Institute of Technology, 2022, 44(1): 112-118.
[5]	王福生, 高湛翔, 董宪伟, 等. 基于物元可拓理论的化工企业风险评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(6): 2 401-2 406.
	WANG Fusheng, GAO Zhanxiang, DONG Xianwei, et al. Risk assessment of the chemical enterprises based on the matter-element extension theory[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(6): 2 401-2 406.
[6]	蒋琴, 钟少波, 朱伟. 京津冀地区森林火灾综合风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(10): 119-125. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.017
	JIANG Qin, ZHONG Shaobo, ZHU Wei. Research on comprehensive risk assessment of forest fire in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(10): 119-125. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.017
[7]	应急管理部关于印发《化工园区安全风险排查治理导则(试行)》和《危险化学品企业安全风险隐患排查治理导则》的通知[EB/OL]. (2019-08-19). http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-08/19/content_5422286.htm.
[8]	罗福周, 袁慧卿, 张扬. 旧工业建筑再生项目消防安全韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(3): 167-173. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.023
	LUO Fuzhou, YUAN Huiqing, ZHANG Yang. Assessment on fire safety resilience of old industrial building regeneration projects[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3): 167-173. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.023
[9]	江杰, 汤娟, 甘雨, 等. 基于组合赋权法的建筑结构安全评价[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2021, 21(17): 7 278-7 285.
	JIANG Jie, TANG Juan, GAN Yu, et al. Safety evaluation of building structure based on combination weighting method[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2021, 21(17): 7 278-7 285.
[10]	黄倩, 闫雅洁, 蒲丽冰, 等. 基于TOPSIS法与RSR法结合的湖北省基本公共卫生服务质量综合评价[J]. 现代预防医学, 2022, 49(3): 447-450, 455.
	HUANG Qian, YAN Yajie, PU Libing, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of basic public health services in Hubei based on TOPSIS and RSR methods[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2022, 49(3): 447-450, 455.

档次	描述	Probit临界值Y	安全描述
一	差	Y<3.5	安全性极低,易出事故
二	中	3.5≤Y<5	安全性较低,较严重
三	良	5≤Y<6.5	安全性中等,需重视
四	优	6.5≤Y	安全性高,较安全

要素	列平均值X_j	标准差σ_j	冲突性E_j	信息量C_j	权重/%
指标G₁₁	0.114	0.057	3.544	0.203	6.06
指标G₁₂	0.179	0.071	3.282	0.234	6.97
指标G₁₃	0.081	0.047	3.674	0.172	5.11
指标G₁₄	0.114	0.057	3.544	0.203	6.06
指标G₂₁	0.140	0.064	3.439	0.220	6.56
指标G₂₂	0.179	0.071	3.282	0.234	6.97
指标G₂₃	0.122	0.060	3.513	0.209	6.23
指标G₂₄	0.081	0.047	3.674	0.172	5.11
指标G₂₅	0.114	0.057	3.544	0.203	6.06
指标G₂₆	0.179	0.071	3.282	0.234	6.97
指标G₂₇	0.140	0.064	3.439	0.220	6.56
指标G₂₈	0.114	0.057	3.544	0.203	6.06
指标G₃₁	0.107	0.055	3.572	0.198	5.88
指标G₃₂	0.130	0.062	3.479	0.215	6.39
指标G₃₃	0.114	0.057	3.544	0.203	6.06
指标G₃₄	0.179	0.071	3.282	0.234	6.97

指标	RSR	频数f	累计频数∑f	秩次范围	平均秩次	向下累计频率/%	自变量 Probit值Z	估计值 WRSR
G₁₂,G₂₂,G₂₆,G₃₄	0.069 7	4	4	4	4	25.00	4.326	0.214 6
G₂₁,G₂₇	0.311 6	2	6	5,6	5.5	34.38	4.598	0.274 6
G₃₂	0.383 5	1	7	7	7	43.75	4.844	0.328 7
G₂₃	0.451 6	1	8	8	8	50.00	5.000	0.363 0
G₁₁,G₁₄,G₂₅,G₂₈,G₃₃	0.514 7	5	13	9,13	11	68.75	5.490	0.470 8
G₃₁	0.573 6	1	14	14	14	87.50	6.150	0.616 1
G₁₃,G₂₄	0.817 5	2	16	15,16	15.5	98.44	7.144	0.834 8

[1]	XU Xiaobin, SHI Fan, FENG Jing, XU Xiaojian, CHANG Leilei. High-resilience safety assessment method of underground coal mining using AdaBoost [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1): 112-118.
[2]	WANG Qifei, ZHAO Yihan, ZHANG Hui, WANG Jian, WANG Yafei. Evaluation of urban resilience based on PSR model and information sensitivity: a case study of Beijing [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(8): 198-204.
[3]	YANG Sanjun, WANG Kun, MENG Yunchen. Occupational safety and health risks and potential moderating effects of exercise in firefighters:a resilience-related biomarker perspective [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(6): 198-206.
[4]	LIU Qiyuan, LIU Jincheng. Regional resilience evaluation methods and influencing factors from perspective of natural disasters [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(5): 174-181.
[5]	CHEN Weigong, WANG Lizhan, ZHANG Yongliang, WANG Xiangdan. Resilience evaluation of government collaborative governance network in public health emergencies: based on prevention and control of novel coronavirus [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 140-147.
[6]	CHEN Na, GUO Haoran, ZHANG Zhipeng, ZHAO Jun. Evaluation of subway station flood safety resilience based on H-OWA operator and projection pursuit [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 148-154.
[7]	ZHANG Wenjie, HU Junhong, WEN Chengwei, TANG Rui. Research on urban rail failure recovery considering network resilience [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 179-186.
[8]	YAN Jun, ZUO Zhe, WANG Yongzhu, LIU Zhiqiang, ZHANG Yuting. Evaluation index system and index construction for urban safe development [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3): 118-125.
[9]	ZHAO Hongxiang, LI Shaopeng, LIU Yazhao. Safety standard promotion of oil-hydrogen refueling station based on resilience theory [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1): 39-44.
[10]	LI Mengjie, LIU Delin. Spatial-temporal evolution and obstacle factors of urban disaster resilience in Zhongyuan urban agglomeration [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(9): 144-151.
[11]	LI Xin, YANG Fuqiang, HONG Yidu, DUAN Zaipeng. Fatigue safety resilience model of assembly line work and its application [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(9): 200-205.
[12]	LIU Zhenliang, YUAN Wei, LI Suchao. Resilience assessment of highway bridge networks subjected to both earthquakes and earthquake-induced secondary emergencies [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 176-184.
[13]	TANG Shaohu, ZHU Wei, CHENG Guang, ZHENG Jianchun, ZHOU Jin. Safety resilience assessment of urban road traffic system under rainstorm waterlogging [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(7): 143-150.
[14]	HUANG Yajiang, LI Shuquan, LI Yixin, ZHENG Han. Comprehensive evaluation on subway operation safety resilience based on DEMATEL-ISM-ANP [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6): 171-177.
[15]	LUO Fuzhou, YUAN Huiqing, ZHANG Yang. Assessment on fire safety resilience of old industrial building regeneration projects [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3): 167-173.