Research progress on safety risk prevention and control system for major hazard installations in chemical parks

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.01.0810

Abstract

Abstract:

To address the high-risk characteristics and cascading propagation effects of accident consequences of major hazard installations in chemical parks, the framework of the safety risk prevention and control system was constructed and optimized. The advantages and disadvantages of safety risk analysis methods for major hazard installations and the evolution analysis methods of domino accident chains were systematically reviewed. The definition, classification, and efficacy evaluation indicators and models of safety barriers in chemical parks were summarized. A new classification pattern for safety barriers in chemical parks was proposed, encompassing physical facilities, automated technologies, operational procedures, and organizational management. Key assessment indicators for safety barriers in chemical parks were identified, namely effectiveness and reliability, and future research directions were outlined. The results show that the proposed system reveals the intrinsic mechanism of dynamic closed-loop control among safety risk analysis, domino accident chain evolution, and safety barriers for major hazard installations in chemical parks, thereby effectively overcoming the static limitations of traditional approaches. The new classification pattern and key assessment indicators provide a novel paradigm for quantifying the effectiveness of safety barriers in chemical parks.

Key words: chemical parks, major hazard installations, safety risk analysis, prevention and control ssytem, domino accident chain, safety barriers

CLC Number:

X937

WANG Jie, ZHANG Mingguang, CHENG Jinqiang, JIANG Juncheng, WANG Shuang, JIANG Jiayi. Research progress on safety risk prevention and control system for major hazard installations in chemical parks[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(1): 146-156.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1

Table 1

Methods for analyzing safety risks of storage tanks in chemical parks

分析方法	特征	局限性对园区风险防控的影响
危险与可操作性分析^[11] (危害辨识)	系统全面地识别潜在风险、可实现事前预防动态适应性不足、定性依赖经验	特殊作业动态风险预见不足使预警资源配置失准
安全检查表分析^[24] (危害辨识)	灵活性强、适用性广、助于发现一些非典型的风险静态清单与动态现场脱节、易致风险疏漏	企业安全状态评估失真使园区监管资源配置失准
故障模式与影响分析^[12] (危害辨识)	分析全面、易于量化排序、可用于事前预防性分析工作量大、用于硬件故障分析、系统级联性缺乏	复杂事故链预见性不足使园区应急准备薄弱与阻断失效
保护层分析^[13] (危害辨识)	结构清晰、识别关键保护层、聚焦SIL定级理想假设存在偏差、且高度依赖初始事件与数据	高估园区实际安全裕度使应急预案与真实风险失配
工作安全分析^[14] (危害辨识)	直观聚焦操作、可提升安全意识并支撑规程制定分析视野受限、存在系统性风险疏漏与人为偏差	交叉作业与承包商风险管控薄弱使园区预警干预能力不足
故障树^[15] (风险评估)	兼容数据缺失与模糊、随机及认知不确定性分析静态逻辑与动态耦合失配、准则模糊	低估人因管理等系统性风险使园区监管难触及结构性隐患
事件树^[4] (风险评估)	事故逻辑清晰、兼具动态风险定量捕捉能力数据依赖性及路径固化与不确定性失配问题	初期事故路径覆盖不足使园区准备缺失而响应滞后
贝叶斯网络^[16] (风险评估)	数据需求兼容随机、时序及不确定性计算复杂、存储需求激增、先验主观性与数据匮乏	监测系统存在系统性偏差使园区数据稀缺风险响应滞后
蒙特卡罗^[17] (风险评估)	不确定性分析可视化、关键因素辨识优化对数据及极端事件高敏感性、且计算成本高昂	人为因素致风险分析失真使园区风险识别能力不足
Petri网^[18] (风险评估)	动态建模能力突出、兼具扩展性与不确定性分析计算复杂度高且对数据敏感	难以支撑园区宏观实时风险态势研判与多要素动态关联分析
蝴蝶结图^[19] (风险评估)	风险沟通直观、数据驱动不确定性量化能力增强主观性强与屏障理想化共因失效制约评估可靠性	高估企业风险防控水平使园区应急资源过载与事故升级
风险矩阵^[20] (风险评估)	系统性增强、不确定性量化能力提升权重主观性强、且存在计算瓶颈与冗余不足	风险优先级失准导致资源错配使园区忽视高影响低概率事件
基于仿真模拟、智能化算法等,或者上述方法组合形式等^{[11,17,25,32]}	场景适配精准度提高、智能驱动风险维度拓展标准缺失、通用性不足制约结果可比性	多为特定事故情景使园区层面使用范围受限

Table 1

Table 2

Analysis methods for accident chain evolution for storage tanks in chemical parks

分析方法	特征	缺陷
典型事故案例分析^[26]	火灾、冲击波与碎片等能量形式驱动事故升级,其链长取决于效应管理的时效与效能	历史数据的非完备性与路径依赖性
事故统计+事件树^[4,6]	储罐区多米诺事故高发(35%以上),可量化其多情景演化路径与概率	静态逻辑结构与简化的独立性假设
事故统计+故障树^[7]	储罐区70%事故引发多米诺效应,43%导致蒸气云爆炸,可识别主导事故链路径	静态逻辑结构与简化的独立性假设
事故统计+贝叶斯网络^[4,16]	解决不确定性问题,可量化火灾、爆炸等多米诺事故链的演化路径与概率	高度依赖于条件概率表先验知识的准确性
动态图模拟方法^[28]	可量化时空耦合效应下的事故链传播机制	难以精确量化评估风险水平
蝴蝶结图^[19]	实现多米诺效应定量分析与可视化	难以量化评估多屏障在耦合事故下系统性失效的概率
蒙特卡罗^[17]	研究储罐多米诺事故链动态演化路径和发生概率	准确性受限于输入参数的概率分布
地理信息系统^[29]	自动识别可能升级效应目标,直接计算可能的多米诺骨牌情景和对应的风险指标	无法独立推演事故链动态演化过程,必须与其他动态模型耦合
事故统计+概率模型^[30]	预测可能发生的多米诺事故链及影响	数据匮乏与模型简化的“瓶颈”
结构响应+Probit 模型^[22,31]	提高储罐火灾升级Probit模型的准确性	缺乏成熟、通用的多灾种耦合模型与简化的工程判据
数值模拟方法^[32]	全面地模拟储罐池火后果,并且准确地评估协同效应下多米诺效应和事故链演化路径规律	计算成本高昂,无法直接用于需要成千上万次模拟的概率风险评估
机器学习^[22]	评估储罐火灾多米诺效应,预测其屈服强度与动态故障	严重依赖数据集的数量与质量,易导致模型过拟合或外推预测不可靠

Table 2

Fig.2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Four types of efficacy assessment models for safety barriers

安全屏障类型	效能评估模型
物理设施	特征:在消防单元,关联安全屏障完整性等级与事故概率,评估其充分性并量化屏障失效风险^[47] 输入(出):安全屏障故障概率等作为输入,设施发生火灾概率作为输出,作为评价安全屏障是否满足防控需求的依据
物理设施	特征:在储罐区,基于ABAQUS软件建立安全屏障下储罐失效时间判据模型,偏差降低11.74%^[5] 输入(出):防火涂层和水喷淋系统下储罐失效过程参数等作为输入,储罐失效时间作为输出,为控制多米诺效应的传播提供判据
自动技术	特征:在浮式装卸油区,基于马尔可夫和Petri网构建安全屏障效能评估模型,用于安全屏障动态效能分析和气体泄漏事故升级概率计算^[48] 输入(出):安全屏障动静态参数等作为输入,平均故障概率(可用性)和事故升级概率(有效性)作为输出,相比下数量级相同且数值略高
自动技术	特征:在化工生产过程,基于模糊贝叶斯网络与保护层分析评估安全仪表系统效能,并实现故障概率动态更新,划分安全完整性等级,相比下偏差降低了14.6%^[44] 输入(出):安全仪表系统故障概率等作为输入、频率和风险等级作为输出,完成安全完整性分级
操作程序	特征:在储罐区,利用火灾升级概率和人因失误概率构建多米诺-人为干预模型,动态贝叶斯网络分析初始事故场景和安全屏障下事故场景,发现人为干预会降低储罐安全性^[49] 输入(出):人因失误概率和安全屏障性能可靠性概率量值等作为输入,储罐火灾发生(升级)概率为输出,发现考虑人为可靠性时,防护设施延迟启动,加剧储罐火灾风险
	特征:在化工园区应急救援环节,结合改进层次分析与熵权法,构建人因可靠性定量模型,评估应急行为失误概率与严重程度^[43] 输入(出):人为错误概率等作为输入,化工园区综合应急能力量值为输出,有效识别关键应急行为,提升园区应急救援能力
	特征:在化工厂,基于技术操作和组织因素的频率和弹性,评估安全屏障效能,以降低事故概率^[50] 输入(出):安全屏障的置信水平、技术、运营和组织因素量值等作为输入,安全屏障效能量值作为输出,评估工艺区域的安全风险
	特征:在加油站,基于人因可靠性分析、模糊综合评价、可靠性等级、专家评分法建立多维结构下安全屏障半定量评估框架,确定屏障评估指标,并对评估结果归一化处理^[51] 输入(出):人因可靠性概率、技术、组织管理、应急效能系数等作为输入,整体安全屏障效能评价结果作为输出,相比下考虑更全面
物理设施自动技术操作程序	特征:在石化企业,明确安全屏障效能评估指标,基于事件树考虑不同安全屏障的效能概率,在多米诺效应风险评估中更详细地预测次生事故发生概率^[45] 输入(出):安全屏障的可用性、有效性量值等作为输入,火灾事故升级概率作为输出,可对多米诺事故情景进行更全面的评估,确定未缓解、缓解情景,抑制多米诺事故链的概率和频率
物理设施自动技术操作程序	特征:在化工生产过程,基于动态仿真技术,量化独立保护层中人因失误概率,将动态仿真与人为可靠性分析结合,实现对人因失误全面分析^[52] 输入(出):事故情景、人因失误概率量值等作为输入,人为可靠性概率作为输出,在保护层评估过程考虑人为干预因素的影响
物理技术自动技术组织管理	特征:在石化企业,利用蝴蝶结图识别关键安全屏障,并评估其效能(响应时间、置信度等),判断安全屏障数量和可靠性是否满足风险控制需求^[2] 输入(出):安全屏障可靠性量化值、安全管理权重等作为输入,安全风险评估结果作为输出,侧重于安全管理评估,为工厂检查提供了更加明确的参考
物理技术自动技术组织管理	特征:在石油开采平台,通过贝叶斯网络实现对潜在事故情景精确建模,进而评估安全屏障效能,通过处理偏差和弹性反应策略,定期迭代动态风险评估效果^[46] 输入(出):安全屏障失效概率等作为输入,安全措施整体性能评估结果作为输出,实现了动态风险评估和管理
物理技术自动技术操作程序组织管理	特征:在石化企业,贝叶斯网络节点代表物理技术类和自动技术类安全屏障健康状态,通过人因可靠性分析评估操作程序和组织管理类安全屏障^[41] 输入(出):安全屏障正常/异常/时间序列数据、权重系数等作为输入,事故后果概率作为输出,继而进行风险量化评估

Table 6

Fig.3

References 53

[1]	ZENG Tao, WEI Liujun, DUO Yingquan, et al. Resilience-based design of barrier system to mitigate fire-driven escalation in process plants[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2025, 199:DOI:10.1016/J.PSEP.2025.107319.
[2]	GAO Xiaoming, CHEN Guohua, XIONG Caiyi, et al. A theoretical framework for chemical storage tank pool fire domino effect prevention based on inherent safety concepts[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2025, 196:DOI:10.1016/J.PSEP.2025.106924.
[3]	国务院事故调查组. 江苏响水天嘉宜化工有限公司“3·21”特别重大爆炸事故调查报告[EB/OL]. [2025-08-30]. https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/sgcc/tbzdsgdcbg/2019tbzdsgcc/201911/W020240229376281346471.pdf.
[4]	CUI Xingmin, ZHANG Mingguang, PAN Wenjie. Dynamic probability analysis on accident chain of atmospheric tank farm based on bayesian network[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2022, 158:146-158. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.10.040
[5]	ZHANG Mingguang, ZHENG Feng, CHEN Fuzhen, et al. Propagation probability of domino effect based on analysis of accident chain in storage tank area[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2019, 62:DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.103962.
[6]	XIAO Shenbin, WEI Lijun, ZENG Tao, et al. Buckling failure prediction of storage tanks in fire scenarios: a machine learning approach[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2025, 182:DOI:10.1016/J.ENGFAILANAL.2025.110157.
[7]	SARVESTANI K, AHMADI O, ALENJAREGHI M J. LPG storage tank accidents: initiating events, causes, scenarios, and consequences[J]. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 2021, 21(4):1305-1314. doi: 10.1007/s11668-021-01174-y
[8]	JIANG Hongrui, DING Long, JI Jie, et al. A novel integrated multi-source heterogeneous uncertainty fusion framework for reducing the complexity of uncertainty characterization in domino effect risk assessment[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2026, 99:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105804.
[9]	LI Yuanyuan, ZHENG Ziran. A literature review on hazardous chemical domino accidents: a clustering and social network analysis approach[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2026, 99:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105823.
[10]	曾涛, 魏利军, 陈国华, 等. 化工园区安全屏障研究综述与展望:概念、评估与管理[J/OL]. 化工进展:1-14. [2025-08-30]. https://doi.org/10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2024-1303.
	ZENG Tao, WEI Lijun, CHEN Guohua, et al. Review and prospect of safety barrier research in chemical industrial parks: concept, assessment and management[J/OL]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress:1-14. [2025-08-30]. https://doi.org/10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2024-1303.
[11]	ALMOUSA A A, HOSEYNI S M, CORDINER J. Incorporating resilience into HAZOP to enhance process safety in industrial facilities[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2025, 96:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105630.
[12]	YU Yang, YANG Yuheng, YU Jianxing, et al. An improved FMEA approach based on interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets and CODAS method for LNG tank safety analysis[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2025, 97:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105679.
[13]	GALEEV A. Establishing risk tolerance criteria for incident scenarios in LOPA[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2025, 99:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105799.
[14]	ALBRECHTSEN E, SOLBERG I, SVENSLI E. The application and benefits of job safety analysis[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 113:425-437. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.007
[15]	HALLOUL Y, CHIBAN S, AWAD A. Adapted fuzzy fault tree analysis for oil storage tank fire[J]. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 2019, 41(8):948-958. doi: 10.1080/15567036.2018.1522393
[16]	岳文静, 杜丽敬, 陈先锋, 等. 基于DBN的气体泄漏事故情景推演与节点分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增1):165-170.
	YUE Wenjing, DU Lijing, CHEN Xianfeng, et al. Scenario deduction and node analysis of gas leakage accidents based on DBN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1):165-170. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S1.0893
[17]	SU Mingqing, WEI Lijun, ZHOU Shennan, et al. Study on dynamic probability and quantitative risk calculation method of domino accident in pool fire in chemical storage tank area[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022, 19(24):DOI:10.3390/IJERPH192416483.
[18]	GUO Liping, WANG Zhirong. Analysis of uncertainty propagation path of fire-induced domino effect based on an approach of layered fuzzy petri nets[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2023, 268:DOI:10.1016/J.CES.2022.118410.
[19]	GHOLAMIZADEH K, ZAREI E, YAZDI M, et al. A hybrid model for dynamic analysis of domino effects in chemical process industries[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2024, 241:DOI:10.1016/J.RESS.2023.109654.
[20]	ZHOU Jianfeng, RENIERS G. Probabilistic petri-net addition enabling decision making depending on situational change: the case of emergency response to fuel tank farm fire[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 200:DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2020.106880.
[21]	GUO Xiaoxue, JI Jie, KHAN F, et al. Fuzzy bayesian network based on an improved similarity aggregation method for risk assessment of storage tank accident[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 149:817-830. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.03.017
[22]	JIANG Min, YANG Yu, BIAN Jiexiang, et al. Explosion induced domino effect assessment in the process industries: a machine learning approach to improve probit models[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2025, 98:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105714.
[23]	宁夏回族自治区应急管理厅. 宁东能源化工基地宁夏畅亿清洁能源有限责任公司“10·24”事故调查报告[EB/OL]. [2025-08-30]. http://nxyjglt.nx.gov.cn/yjfc/sgdcclyzrqymd/202403/t20240330_4500938.html.
[24]	ZHAO Xu, ZHAO Yunhao, LI Jing, et al. PS-RTA method for safety responsibility management: an approach to promote competency of employees to fulfill safety responsibility[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2025, 98:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105713.
[25]	XU Yuanyuan, RENIERS G, YANG Ming, et al. Uncertainties and their treatment in the quantitative risk assessment of domino effects: classification and review[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2023, 172:971-985. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2023.02.082
[26]	HU Hong, LAN Meng, QIN Rongshui, et al. Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment considering the domino effect in chemical parks based on Monte Carlo simulation[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2025, 193:856-873. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2024.11.055
[27]	AMIN M T, SCARPONI G E, COZZANI V, et al. Improved pool fire-initiated domino effect assessment in atmospheric tank farms using structural response[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2024, 242:DOI:10.1016/J.RESS.2023.109751.
[28]	LAN Meng, GARDONI P, WENG Wenguo, et al. Modeling the evolution of industrial accidents triggered by natural disasters using dynamic graphs: a case study of typhoon-induced domino accidents in storage tank areas[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2024, 241:DOI:10.1016/J.RESS.2023.109656.
[29]	COZZANI V, ANTONIONI G, SPADONI G. Quantitative assessment of domino scenarios by a GIS-based software tool[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2006, 19(5):463-477. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.11.007
[30]	MUKHIM E D, ABBASI T, TAUSEEF S M, et al. Domino effect in chemical process industries triggered by overpressure:formulation of equipment-specific probits[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2017, 106:263-273. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2017.01.004
[31]	ZHOU Lixing, CHEN Guohua, GAO Xiaoming. An event-driven modeling methodology of situation awareness: towards emergency response process in fire-induced domino scenario[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2025, 96:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105618.
[32]	石军花, 朱梅, 李进, 等. 化工园区储罐火灾热辐射模型仿真研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增1):79-83.
	SHI Junhua, ZHU Mei, LI Jin, et al. Simulation study on thermal radiation model of storage tank fire in chemical industry[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S1):79-83. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S1.0802
[33]	SKLET S. Safety barriers: definition, classification, and performance[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2006, 19(5):494-506. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.12.004
[34]	LIU Yiliu. Safety barriers: research advances and new thoughts on theory, engineering and management[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 67:DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104260.
[35]	王冬冬, 杨昂滨, 王智浩, 等. 化工园区危险化学品事故应急行为人因可靠性分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(2):21-27. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.02.1078
	WANG Dongdong, YANG Angbin, WANG Zhihao, et al. Human reliability analysis of emergency behaviors for hazardous chemical accidents in chemical industry parks[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(2):21-27. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.02.1078
[36]	YUAN Shuaiqi, YANG Ming, RENIERS G, et al. Safety barriers in the chemical process industries: a state-of-the-art review on their classification, assessment, and management[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 148:DOI:10.1016/J.SSCI.2021.105647.
[37]	WANG Haishun, WEI Lijun, WANG Kai, et al. Current status, challenges, and future pathways of chemical industrial park safety in China[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2024, 87:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2023.105233.
[38]	WANG Jie, ZHANG Mingguang, WANG Zirui, et al. An effectiveness assessment model of protection chain for major hazard installations in chemical industrial parks[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2026, 99:DOI:10.1016/J.JLP.2025.105815.
[39]	WANG Qianlin, CHEN Shicheng, SHI Jiancheng, et al. Assessment of safety barrier performance in complex chemical processes: bridging conventional semi-quantitative risk assessment techniques with systems-theoretic optimisation[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2025, 316:DOI:10.1016/J.CES.2025.121927.
[40]	AKYUZ E, CEBI S. Analysis of human errors in emergency steering gear operation at tanker ship under decomposed fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and SLIM approach[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2025, 340:DOI:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2025.122408.
[41]	DIMAIO F, SCAPINELLO O, ZIO E, et al. Accounting for safety barriers degradation in the risk assessment of oil and gas systems by multistate bayesian networks[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021, 216:DOI:10.1016/J.RESS.2021.107943.
[42]	贺治超, 兰猛, 贺非凡, 等. 基于概率性仿真的危化品多米诺事故风险动态评估软件系统设计与应用[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2025, 21(4):5-11.
	HE Zhichao, LAN Meng, HE Feifan, et al. Design and application of software for dynamic risk assessment on domino accidents of hazardous chemicals based on probabilistic simulation[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2025, 21(4):5-11.
[43]	WANG Dongdong, YANG Guoliang, HAN Jixiang, et al. Quantitative assessment of human error of emergency behavior for hazardous chemical spills in chemical parks[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2024, 189:930-949. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2024.06.107
[44]	WANG Zheng, WANG Jinjiang, GUAN Pengting, et al. SIL assessment of in-service safety instrumented systems in the chemical industry based on FBN-LOPA[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2025, 195:DOI:10.1016/J.PSEP.2024.12.121.
[45]	CHEN Honghao, CHEN Guohua, XIONG Caiyi, et al. An inherent safety assessment tool for storage tank farm layout planning based on dynamic propagation modeling simulation of fire domino effects[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2025, 256:DOI:10.1016/J.RESS.2024.110797.
[46]	BUBBICO R, LEE S, MOSCATI D, et al. Dynamic assessment of safety barriers preventing escalation in offshore oil & gas[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 121:319-330. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.011
[47]	徐安琦, 钱一潇, 钱瑜. 化工企业多米诺事故安全屏障优化布置[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(2):175-180. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.02.030
	XU Anqi, QIAN Yixiao, QIAN Yu. Study on optimal layout of barriers against domino effects in chemical enterprise[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(2):175-180. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.02.030
[48]	YU Jianxing, ZENG Qingze, YU Yang, et al. Safety barrier performance assessment based on multi-phase markov model and EPN: application to FPSO gas leakage[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2025, 323:DOI:10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2025.120597.
[49]	LI Xin, GE Fanliang, LIN Weidong, et al. A risk assessment method to quantify the effect of human reliability on storage tank safety combining optimized CREAM and dynamic Bayesian network[J]. Safety Science, 2025, 185:DOI:10.1016/J.SSCI.2025.106796.
[50]	HOSSEINNIA D B, PALTRINIERI N, BUBBICO R. Safety barrier management: risk-based approach for the oil and gas sector[J]. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2021, 9(7):DOI:10.3390/JMSE9070722.
[51]	KANG Jian, WANG Lidan, JIN Hao, et al. Performance evaluation of safety barriers based on multidimensional deconstruction[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2023, 42(1):174-185. doi: 10.1002/prs.v42.1
[52]	ZHU Changlong, QI Meng, JIANG Juncheng. Quantifying human error probability in independent protection layers for a batch reactor system using dynamic simulations[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 133:243-258. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2019.11.021
[53]	张明广, 许晓康, 程晋强, 等. 一种危险化学品重大危险源风险预警方法及装置: 中国, CN120412231B[P]. 2025-09-02.

来源	具体分类名称	分类依据
SKLET^[33] LIU Yiliu^[34] YUAN Shuaiqi等^[36] WANG Haishun等^[37] 曾涛等^[10] WANG Jie等^[38]	被动、主动屏障	存在形态作用机制防护范围失效逻辑
	物理、技术、操作屏障
	物理、非物理屏障
	静态、动态、时间屏障
	常规、应急屏障
	软连接、硬连接屏障
	技术、非技术屏障
	预防、缓解、控制型屏障
	永久型、暂时型屏障
	物理、标识、行为屏障

屏障类别	举例
物理设施	防火涂层、防爆涂层、防爆墙等
自动技术	自动水喷淋系统、安全仪表系统、自动报警系统、过程控制系统等
操作程序	标准操作程序、员工培训认证、应急响应计划、风险评估管理等
组织管理	安全管理体系、安全委员会小组、政策规章制度、安全文化建设等

评估指标	取值	定义
置信水平	[0-1]	主要功能正常运行时的可用性
响应时间/s	—	主要功能发挥的时间
经济影响/元	—	所需成本及获得的效益
有效性	[0-1]	成功激活后阻止升级的概率
可用性	[0-1]	量化后的按需失效概率
适应性	[0-1]	在不失去其主要功能的情况下承受极端干预能力
可恢复性	[0-1]	在中断之后自行恢复的能力
弹性、韧性	[0-1]	吸收(抵抗)、适应和恢复能力