Multi-level disaster chain deduction analysis and case application of hazardous chemical accidents

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.1155

Abstract

Abstract:

To enhance the risk prevention and control capabilities of hazardous chemical factories and support emergency decision-making in case of accidents, a multi-level deduction model for the disaster chain was proposed. Furthermore, three categories of key factors (such as thermal radiation, toxic gases, and overpressure) affecting hazardous chemical accidents were considered in the model. Based on the fluid diffusion model and Probit model, the fire probability and sequence simulation algorithm of hazardous chemicals container and the ignition time estimation algorithm of hazardous chemicals explosion were proposed, respectively. Then, the quantitative analysis of the combustion and explosion evolution process in hazardous chemical accidents was performed. For the case of a resin chemical production company in Guangdong province, a disaster chain caused by hazardous chemical leakage accidents was developed to analyze the evolution time and probability of each node. The results indicated that the proposed deduction model can effectively analyze the evolution process of the actual hazardous chemical disaster chain, predict the probability and time of accident nodes, and provide fundamental knowledge for the safety layout of hazardous chemical plants.

Key words: hazardous chemical accidents, disaster chain, chain deduction, Monte Carlo, Probit model

CLC Number:

X928.5化学物质致因事故

HE Qinglun, JIANG Wenyu, WANG Fei, LI Xin, WANG Zhi. Multi-level disaster chain deduction analysis and case application of hazardous chemical accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 162-170.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Tab.1

Fig.5

Tab.2

Thermal radiation value of each path and failure time of tank group exposed to thermal radiation

传播路径	热辐射值/ (kW·m^-2)	$t f$ /min
1→2	23.99	9
1→3	17.2	13.1
1→4	32.04	6.5
12→3	21.84	10
12→4	34.54	6
13→2	28.63	7.38
13→4	36.23	5.66
14→2	26.49	8.05
14→3	21.39	10.25
123→4	38.73	5.25
124→3	26.03	8.22
132→4	38.73	5.25
134→2	31.13	6.71
142→3	26.03	8.22
143→2	31.13	6.71

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.6

References 23

[1]	马小林, 昌伟伟. 基于事故致因链的天津港“8.12”火灾爆炸事故分析[J]. 安全, 2022, 43(5):56-61.
	MA Xiaolin, CHANG Weiwei. Analysis on Tianjin Port "8. 12" fire and explosion accident based on accident causation chains[J]. Safety & Security, 2022, 43(5):56-61.
[2]	史培军. 三论灾害研究的理论与实践[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2002, 11(3):1-9.
	SHI Peijun. Theory on disaster science and disaster dynamics[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2002, 11(3):1-9.
[3]	ZHENG Liang, WANG Fei, ZHENG Xiaocui, et al. Discovering the relationship of disasters from big scholar and social media news datasets[J]. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2019, 12(11):1341-1363. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2018.1514082
[4]	JIANG Wenyu, WANG Fei, ZHENG Xiaocui, et al. Toward interoperable multi-hazard modeling: a disaster management system for disaster model service chain[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2022, 13(6):862-877. doi: 10.1007/s13753-022-00450-1
[5]	孙逸林, 郑小强, 刘险峰, 等. 基于AcciMap模型的燃气管道泄漏爆炸事故分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7):140-146. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.1011
	SUN Yilin, ZHENG Xiaoqiang, LIU Xianfeng, et al. Analysis of gas pipeline leakage and explosion accident based on AcciMap mode[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(7):140-146. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.07.1011
[6]	陈国华, 李佳玲, 陈学希, 等. 灾害链网络下城市区域安全风险评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11):146-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2043
	CHEN Guohua, LI Jialing, CHEN Xuexi, et al. A safety risk assessment model of urban areas under disaster chain network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32 (11):146-153. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2043
[7]	WANG Junjie, GAO Huiying, XIN Junfeng. Application of artificial neural networks and GIS in urban earthquake disaster mitigation[C]. International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology & Automation(ICICTA 2010), 2010:726-729.
[8]	ZHENG Xinxin, WANG Fei, JIANG Wenyu, et al. Construction and spatio-temporal derivation of hazardous chemical leakage disaster chain[J]. International Journal of Image and Data Fusion, 2021, 12(4):335-348. doi: 10.1080/19479832.2021.1958929
[9]	CHEN Chao, GENSERIK R, NIMA K. A dynamic multi-agent approach for modeling the evolution of multi-hazard accident scenarios in chemical plants[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2021, 207: 107 349-107 363. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.107349
[10]	XING Zhixiang, WANG Xianjin. The consequence analysis of pressure vessel failure[J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2011, 396/397/398:66-70.
[11]	VALERIO C, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.012
[12]	NIMA K. Application of dynamic Bayesian network to risk analysis of domino effects in chemical infrastructures[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2015, 138: 263-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.007
[13]	COZZNANI V, GIANFILIPPO G, GIACOMO A, 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
[14]	郭婷, 丁晓强. 基于ALOHA软件的某化工厂选址合理性评估[J]. 安全, 2020, 41(1):36-40.
	GUO Ting, DING Xiaoqiang. Evaluation of the reasonability of site selection for a chemical plant based on ALOHA[J]. Safety & Security 2020, 41 (1):36-40.
[15]	刘佳, 王伟娜. 氯乙烯球罐的火灾爆炸事故风险分析[J]. 中国公共安全:学术版, 2005(2):19-27.
	LIU Jia, WANG Weina. Fire explosion accident risk analysis on the chlorine ethylene sphere tank[J]. China Public Security:Academic Edition, 2005(2): 19-27.
[16]	李春孝. 民用液化气泄漏爆炸威力的探析[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2004, 23(2):173-174.
	LI Chunxiao. Exploration of the risk of LPG leakage and explosion[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2004, 23(2): 173-174.
[17]	CHEN Chao, KHAKZAD N, RENIERS G. Dynamic vulnerability assessment of process plants with respect to vapor cloud explosions[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2020, 200:106 934-106 949. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106934
[18]	VALERIO C, 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. pmid: 15072815
[19]	刘爱华. 城市灾害链动力学演变模型与灾害链风险评估方法的研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2013.
	LIU Aihua. Research on the dynamics evolution model of urban disaster chain and the risk assessment method of disaster chain[D]. Changsha: Central South University, 2013.
[20]	翁浩铭, 李自力, 边江, 等. LNG接收站泄漏事故及火灾爆炸后果分析[J]. 天然气与石油, 2016, 34(6):40-45,144.
	WENG Haoming, LI Zili, BIAN Jiang, et al. Analysis of LNG terminal leakage accidents and fire and explosion consequences[J]. Natural Gas and Oil, 2016, 34 (6): 40-45,144.
[21]	周晓莹, 焦光伟, 陈思维. 汽油输送管道泄漏蒸发扩散规律研究[J]. 中国储运, 2011(10):122-124.
[22]	张继国, 余齐杰. LNG储罐爆炸和火灾危险性定量分析[J]. 石油化工安全环保技术, 2014, 30(2):36-40.
	ZHANG Jiguo, YU Qijie. Quantitative analysis of explosion and fire hazards in liquefied natural gas tank[J]. Petrochemical Safety and Environmental Protection Technology, 2014, 30 (2): 36-40.
[23]	CHEN Chao, RENIERS G, ZHANG Laobing. An innovative methodology for quickly modeling the spatial-temporal evolution of domino accidents triggered by fire[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 54: 312-324. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2018.04.012

槽罐编号	与爆炸中心的距离/m	承受超压/ kPa	失效概率
R02	12.68	48.78	0.9
V02	9.45	90.18	1
R03	7.22	158.28	1
V03	6	233.05	1
R04A	12.7	48.38	0.9
R04B	16.3	29	0.86
R05	19.97	18.88	0
R06	23.76	13.13	0
R08	2.5	1452.3	1
R09	6.5	197.15	1
R10	10.5	72.36	0.99

罐组失效顺序	出现次数	概率
1→234	1 180	0.118
1→243	2 132	0.213
1→324	896	0.089 6
1→342	1 340	0.134
1→423	2 658	0.265 8
1→432	1 794	0.179 4

节点序号	触发条件	能否触发
S2	S1+火源+立即点火	能
S3	S1+液池扩大+爆炸蒸气云形成+ 火源+延迟点火	能
S4	S1+液池扩大+蒸气挥发+无火源	能
S5	S1+液池扩大+蒸气挥发+无火源	能
S6	S1+S2+人员位于损伤范围内	能
S7	S1+S2	能
S8	S3+建筑物达到失效超压	能
S9	S3+人员位于损伤范围内	能
S10	S2或S12+S13	能
S11	S3+设备达到失效超压	能
S12	S2	能
S13	S12	能
S14	S13+部分未燃烧	能
S15	S3+碎片+泄漏+点燃	能
S16	S15	能
S17~S25	S3+超压+碎片+泄漏+点燃	否
S26	S3+超压+碎片+大量泄漏+高热	否