Correlation and traceability analysis of hazardous chemical explosion accidents based on Bayesian network

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.06.1848

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the effectiveness of hidden danger investigation, a reasoning model for hidden danger of explosive accidents of hazardous chemicals was proposed based on BN. First, according to the theory of combustion and explosion and expert experience, the main types of hidden dangers affecting the explosion of hazardous chemicals were determined, and BN model of explosion, leakage and ignition source was constructed. The prior and conditional probabilities of hidden dangers were determined by triangular fuzzy numbers. Then, Bayesian forward reasoning was used to calculate the probability of explosions of hazardous chemicals. Combined with reverse reasoning, the hidden dangers that were most likely to lead to explosion accidents were identified, and the formation of hidden risk factors was traced back. Finally, Bayes sensitivity analysis method was used to determine the key hazards affecting the explosion of hazardous chemicals and the correlation between the accident hazards, and it was verified by an explosion case of oil storage tank. The results show that the explosion probability of the storage tank calculated by causal reasoning is about 4.7%. Equipment overpressure and electric spark have the highest posterior probability, which is the most likely to lead to the explosion of the storage tank. The reason can be traced back to the failure to inspect the storage tank regularly or the failure to use explosion-proof equipment. Electrical spark and valve or flange damage are the key hidden dangers of oil storage tank explosion, and the accident hidden danger is related to the chain of "valve or flange damage → abnormal oil gusher → leakage exceeding limit → fire source (electrical spark) → explosion".

Key words: hazardous chemical explosion, Bayesian network (BN), hidden danger of accident, triangular fuzzy number, posterior probability

CLC Number:

X928.5化学物质致因事故

JIANG Zijian, ZHOU Rongyi, SHI Yunxiao, LIU Can, YANG Bifan, ZHENG Shiqiu. Correlation and traceability analysis of hazardous chemical explosion accidents based on Bayesian network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(6): 173-180.

Figures/Tables 12

Fig.1

Table 1

Fig.2

Table 2

Fig.3

Table 3

Fuzzy prior probability of node B7

专家编号及结果	状态和概率
专家编号及结果	经常(B₇-1)	偶尔(B₇-2)	无(B₇-3)
专家1	(0,0,0.17)	(0,0,0.17)	(0.67,0.83,1)
专家2	(0,0,0.17)	(0,0.17,0.33)	(0.67,0.83,1)
专家3	(0,0.17,0.33)	(0,0.17,0.33)	(0.83,1,1)
专家4	(0,0,0.17)	(0,0,0.17)	(0.5,0.67, 0.83)
模糊概率 $P ~ i j$	(0,0.042 5, 0.21)	(0,0.085, 0.25)	(0.667 5, 0.832 5, 0.957 5)
标准概率 $P i j$	0.07	0.1	0.83

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Table 5

References 15

[1]	张圣柱, 王旭, 魏利军, 等. 2016—2020年全国化工和危险化学品事故分析研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2021, 17(10):119-126.
	ZHANG Shengzhu, WANG Xu, WEI Lijun, et al. Analysis and research on chemical and hazardous chemicals accidents in China during 2016-2020[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2021, 17(10):119-126.
[2]	裴甲坤, 王飞跃, 郭换换, 等. 基于改进尖点突变模型的化工事故致因分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(7):20-25. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.07.004
	PEI Jiakun, WANG Feiyue, GUO Huanhuan, et al. Cause analysis of chemical accidents based on improved cusp catastrophe model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(7):20-25. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.07.004
[3]	刘庆龙, 曲秋影, 赵东风, 等. 基于多源异构数据融合的化工安全风险动态量化评估方法[J]. 化工学报, 2021, 72(3):1769-1777. doi: 10.11949/0438-1157.20200749
	LIU Qinglong, QU Qiuying, ZHAO Dongfeng, et al. Dynamic quantitative assessment method of chemical safety risk based on multi-source heterogeneous data fusion[J]. CIESC Journal, 2021, 72(3):1769-1777.
[4]	周荣义, 林金玉, 刘勇. 危险货物道路运输风险评估的集对模型及应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(1):173-179. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.029
	ZHOU Rongyi, LIN Jinyu, LIU Yong. A risk assessment model for hazmat road transportation based on set pair analysis and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(1):173-179. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.029
[5]	WU Chao, HUANG Lang. A new accident causation model based on information flow and its application in Tianjin port fire and explosion accident[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2019, 182:73-85.
[6]	陈伟珂, 张欣. 危化品储运火灾爆炸事故多因素耦合动力学关系[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6):49-54. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.009
	CHEN Weike, ZHANG Xin. Dynamic relationship between multi coupling risk factors of hazardous chemical storage and transportation fire and explosion accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6):49-54. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.009
[7]	JIANG Wei, HAN Wei. Analysis of "2·28" KEEPER chemical industries hazardous chemical explosion accident based on FTA and HFACS[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, 15(10):DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15102151.
[8]	付净, 聂方超, 刘虹, 等. 基于FTA-24Model的化工事故原因分析[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2019, 26(6):159-165.
	FU Jing, NIE Fangchao, LIU Hong, et al. Cause analysis of chemical accidents based on FTA-24Model[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2019, 26(6):159-165.
[9]	鲁义, 伍江乐, 邵淑珍, 等. 基于贝叶斯网络的危化品道路运输事故推理模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(3):174-182. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.024
	LU Yi, WU Jiangle, SHAO Shuzhen, et al. Prediction model for road transport accidents of hazardous chemicals based on Bayesian network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3):174-182. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.024
[10]	宋英华, 刘子奇, 刘丹, 等. 基于模糊贝叶斯网络的化工园区火灾爆炸事故情景推演[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(3):86-93.
	SONG Yinghua, LIU Ziqi, LIU Dan, et al. Scenario deduction of fire and explosion accidents in chemical industry parks based on fuzzy Bayesian network[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29(3):86-93.
[11]	李丽, 周荣义, 王凌睿, 等. 基于后悔理论的危化品公路桥梁运输风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(2):71-77.
	LI Li, ZHOU Rongyi, WANG Lingrui, et al. Risk assessment of road bridge transportation of hazardous chemicals based on regret theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29(2):71-77.
[12]	胡志芳, 覃盼. 基于贝叶斯网络的三峡通航安全风险评估[J]. 水道港口, 2022, 43(4):555-560.
	HU Zhifang, QIN Pan. Navigation safety risk assessment of the Three Gorges based on Bayesian networks[J]. Journal of Waterway and Harbor, 2022, 43(4):555-560.
[13]	朱敬聪, 朱晓光, 关磊. 基于贝叶斯网络的化工企业人员应急疏散研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(2):739-745.
	ZHU Jingcong, ZHU Xiaoguang, GUAN Lei. On the emergency evacuation of the personnel in the chemical enterprises based on the Bayesian network[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(2):739-745.
[14]	李敏, 林志军, 鲁义, 等. 基于模糊贝叶斯网络的煤矿瓦斯爆炸风险评估[J]. 煤炭学报, 2023, 48(增2):626-637.
	LI Min, LIN Zhijun, LU Yi, et al. Risk assessment of gas explosion in coal mines based on fuzzy Bayesian network[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2023, 48(S2):626-637.
[15]	易玉枚, 廖可兵, 易灿南. 基于BN的模糊系统事故风险管理辅助分析[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2015, 22(3):105-110.
	YI Yumei, LIAO Kebing, YI Cannan. Study on the assistant analysis for accident risk management based on fuzzy system and BN[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2015, 22(3):105-110.

序号	模糊语言	三角模糊数
1	非常高	(0.83,1,1)
2	高	(0.67,0.83,1)
3	较高	(0.5,0.67,0.83)
4	中等	(0.33,0.5,0.67)
5	较低	(0.17,0.33,0.5)
6	低	(0,0.17,0.33)
7	非常低	(0,0,0.17)

因素	根节点	描述	状态
物料控制设施F₁	阀门或法兰损坏B₁	阀门受力变形、法兰螺丝紧偏等	是、否
	阀门或法兰密封失效B₂	法兰密封垫片破裂、老化失弹、垫片偏装等	是、否
	罐体破裂B₃	未严格控制充装系数,储罐内温度升高体积膨胀,引发储罐或阀门管道破裂	是、否
	管道破裂B₄		是、否
	物料超量充装B₅		不适当、可接受、合适
	设备缺陷或安装不当B₆	有缺陷的焊缝和防腐处理不到位的部位发生腐蚀	不适当、可接受、合适
物料监测措施F₂	安全阀未起跳B₇	装置故障导致其未起跳、起跳压力失控、起跳高度不够等	经常、偶尔、无
	自控联锁系统失效B₈	联锁系统均采用电信号控制,供电系统出现故障等会导致其失效	经常、偶尔、无
	压力表、液位计损坏B₉	仪表本身质量问题,或对仪表的故障诊断方法有误	经常、偶尔、无
超压爆炸F₃	设备超压B₁₀	操作失误或工艺条件异常,油品在储罐内气化	是、否
—	明火B₁₁	罐区内违章动火	是、否
	电火花(静电)B₁₂	电气故障,或使用非防爆电器(防静电装置失效)	是、否
	雷击B₁₃	避雷装置故障,接地端损坏	是、否
	高温表面B₁₄	热量积聚使得油品温度持续上升,最终形成火源	是、否
	摩擦撞击火花B₁₅	使用铁制工具或穿带钉鞋	是、否

模型	分析结果
模型	隐患	风险因素
文献[15]	—	充装过量、阀门或法兰泄漏、人的误操作、未使用防爆电器或防爆电器损坏等
文中	阀门或法兰损坏、设备超压和电火花(静电)	长时间未检查或现阶段所用阀门选型不当、法兰螺丝安装不当、过量储存、未使用防爆设备或防爆电器损坏、员工工作中与带电体接触等