Coupling smoke information and Monte Carlo simulation for evacuation of tunnel fires and its optimization

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.12.2206

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to ensure the safe evacuation of people under tunnel fire, a tunnel in Guangzhou city was studied as an example. Firstly, 18 simulation conditions were formed by the combination of three factors: fire heat release rate, natural wind speed and fire location. Secondly, the available safe evacuation time (ASET) was solved with the fire dynamics simulator(FDS), and the hazard characteristic parameters such as smoke visibility, temperature and CO concentration in the grid were obtained. Then, the smoke information was coupled with Monte Carlo simulation to solve the required safe egress time (RSET) and fractional effective dose (FED) with the Pathfinder. Finally, the double criterion (whether ASET was greater than RSET or not, and whether individual risk value FED exceeded the standard or not) were used to analyze the scenarios, and the hazard scenarios were optimized and their effects were quantified. The results show that the personnel evacuation risk is significantly correlated with the fire heat release rate and natural wind speed, but has nothing to do with fire location. In addition, the evacuation optimization efficiency of the method based on zonal evacuation and dynamic exits is more than 10%.

Key words: tunnel fire, personnel evacuation, smoke information, Monte Carlo simulation, evacuation risk, dual criterion, optimization effect

ZHANG Xiaochun, CHEN Linjie, ZHOU Geyao, ZHANG Zhaomin, WEI Ruichao, WU Binbin. Coupling smoke information and Monte Carlo simulation for evacuation of tunnel fires and its optimization[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(12): 167-175.

Figures/Tables 8

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

References 17

[1]	李伟平, 徐永, 廖少明. 公路隧道火灾安全疏散时间计算法的探讨与改进[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(9):43-50.
	LI Weiping, XU Yong, LIAO Shaoming. Exploring and improving RSET calculation method in road tunnel fire[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2012, 22(9): 43-50.
[2]	张玉春, 何川. 基于人员疏散随机性的公路隧道火灾风险分析[J]. 土木工程学报, 2010, 43(7):113-118.
	ZHANG Yuchun, HE Chuan. Analysis of fire risk of road tunnel based on random ness of evacuation[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2010, 43(7): 113-118.
[3]	王赤心. 采用蒙特卡洛法计算隧道人员疏散时间[J]. 现代隧道技术, 2017, 54(2):144-148.
	WANG Chixin. Calculation of evacuation time by the Monte Carlo method[J]. Modern Tunnelling Technology, 2017, 54(2): 144-148.
[4]	陈明仙, 许贵贤. 海底隧道火灾事故人群疏散优化方案研究[J]. 华北科技学院学报, 2017, 14(6):59-64.
	CHEN Mingxian, XU Guixian. Research on optimization of fire crowd evacuation in subsea tunnel[J]. Journal of North China Institute of Science and Technology, 2017, 14(6): 59-64.
[5]	何叶. 珠江新城核心区地下综合交通系统设计实施与评价[D]. 广州: 华南理工大学, 2015.
	HE Ye. Research and assessment on practical design of the underground integrated transportation system in Zhujiang new town core area[D]. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology, 2015.
[6]	PIARC Committee on Road Tunnels. Fire and smoke control in road tunnels[R]. 2005.
[7]	钟委, 李华琳, 骆轲轲, 等. 环境风作用下城市地下隧道自然通风效果的研究[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2017, 43(8):65-68.
	ZHONG Wei, LI Hualin, LUO Keke, et al. Study of the natural ventilation effect in urban tunnel under environmental wind[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2017, 43(8): 65-68.
[8]	TRUCHOT B, FOUILLEN F, COLLET S. An experimental evaluation of toxic gas emissions from vehicle fires[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2018, 97: 111-118. doi: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.12.002
[9]	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Safety in tunnels: transport of dangerous goods through road tunnels[M]. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001:33-47.
[10]	张孝春, 陈林杰, 周舸尧, 等. 隧道火灾FDS模拟结果附录[Z/OL]. (2023-08-20). https://kdocs.cn/l/cdfX2JVUkBZE.
[11]	汪金辉, 焦宇, 刘江虹, 等. 参数不确定性对隧道火灾人员安全时间的影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(12):46-51.
	WANG Jinhui, JIAO Yu, LIU Jianghong, et al. Effect of parameter uncertainty on available time under tunnel fire[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(12): 46-51.
[12]	FRIDOLF K, RONCHI E, NILSSON D, et al. The representation of evacuation movement in smoke-filled underground transportation systems[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 90: 28-41. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.04.016
[13]	杨瑞新, 胡隆华, 王信友, 等. 公路隧道火灾自动报警系统的全尺寸实验研究[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2009, 28(10):757-760.
	YANG Ruixin, HU Longhua, WANG Xinyou, et al. Full scale experimental studies on the response characteristics and applicability of fire automatic alarm system in a road tunnel[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2009, 28(10): 757-760.
[14]	吕勇. 公路隧道火灾人员逃生不确定性研究[D]. 长安: 长安大学, 2013.
	LYU Yong. Study on the uncertainty of fire personnel escape of highway tunnel[D]. Chang'an: Chang'an University, 2013.
[15]	范维澄, 孙金华, 陆守香. 火灾风险评估方法学[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2004:521-533.
[16]	李削云, 马险峰, 王俊淞. 公路隧道火灾逃生疏散研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(5):66-71.
	LI Xiaoyun, MA Xianfeng, WANG Junsong. Research on evacuation and rescue in road tunnel under fire[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(5): 66-71.
[17]	戎贤, 许家杰, 张新宇, 等. 特长公路隧道火灾烟气沉降特性对人员疏散影响的研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2023, 19(2):128-135.
	RONG Xian, XU Jiajie, ZHANG Xinyu, et al. Research on influence of fire smoke descent characteristics on personnel evacuation in extra-long highway tunnel[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2023, 19(2): 128-135.

场景序号	火源规模/MW	自然风速/ (m·s^-1)	火源位置
1—3	5.0	0.0;1.0;2.0	车道A,隧道中部
4—6	5.0	0.0;1.0;2.0	车道B,隧道中部
7—9	10.0	0.0;1.0;2.0	车道A,隧道中部
10—12	10.0	0.0;1.0;2.0	车道B,隧道中部
13—15	20.0	0.0;1.0;2.0	车道A,隧道中部
16—18	20.0	0.0;1.0;2.0	车道B,隧道中部

场景序号	整体疏散风险值				个人疏散风险值
场景序号	ASET/s	RSET值/s (选择最大值)	安全余量/s	初步判断为危险的概率/%	FED 临界值	最大RSET 对应的FED 值/10^-4	个人累加 FED/10^-4 (选择最大值)	初步判断为危险的概率/%
1	229.0	219.0	10	0	0.3	1.37	3.60	0
2	>330.0	214.5	>115.5	0	0.3	0.39	23.0	0
3	195.0	211.5	-16.5	41.8	0.3	17.0	90.0	0
4	228.7	218.0	10.7	0	0.3	2.06	2.10	0
5	>330.0	218.8	>111.2	0	0.3	4.20	32.0	0
6	214.5	219.5	-5	0.6	0.3	5.26	77.0	0
7	238.9	213.5	25.4	0	0.3	1.49	2.20	0
8	>330.0	215.3	>114.7	0	0.3	14.0	34.0	0
9	151.1	212.0	-60.9	100	0.3	11.0	59.0	0
10	232.30	217.8	14.5	0	0.3	2.06	3.50	0
11	297.7	224.0	73.7	0	0.3	0.77	33.0	0
12	171.9	217.0	-45.1	100	0.3	14.5	60.0	0
13	206.3	216.3	-10	4.2	0.3	1.23	2.20	0
14	208.2	223.8	-15.6	2.6	0.3	2.79	27.0	0
15	171.0	220.3	-49.3	100	0.3	4.52	47.0	0
16	206.5	227.5	-21	4.4	0.3	1.96	2.00	0
17	136.0	215.8	-79.8	100	0.3	7.89	44.0	0
18	161.4	220.8	-59.4	100	0.3	4.09	49.0	0