液化石油气(LPG)泄漏事故定量风险分析

摘要针对液化石油气存储设施,为了更全面地计算出事故的后果,首次结合了SLAB模型、动态BLEVE模型、多能法以及损害模型分别计算LPG泄漏爆炸事故的泄露区域、热辐射影响、超压影响以及对人体和建筑的损伤。计算了综合考虑不同因素的致死率,定量地给出了事故可能造成的危害,结果表明,一旦发生事故,在直径8 m的范围内因热辐射造成的死亡率可达到80%,而超压导致周围建筑物的损坏率会达到50%~75%,并对户外人员造成最高96%的死亡率。疏散区域至少应在泄漏位置20 m之外。本论文所使用的计算方法可以对液化石油气存储的风险进行量化,有助于本质安全设计、制定量化规范和应急方案。

	Service

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	Email Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	高思达
	郝琳
	朱振兴
	卫宏远

关键词：安全工程液化石油气定量风险分析泄漏爆炸后果模拟

Abstract： In order to conduct a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) on the storage warehouse of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), SLAB model, dynamic BLEVE fireball model and multi-energy model were employed to calculate the dispersion of LPG, the thermal effects and the overpressure. The combination of these models can predict the consequences of such accidents more comprehensively. The calculation results of these models are used to assess the degree of damage to buildings and the probability of human burns. The result shows that the fatality rate due to heat radiation reaches 80% within an area of 8 m in diameter, 50%—75% of the outer walls of the surrounding buildings will be damaged, the highest fatality rate for outdoor people due to overpressure reaches 96%, the evacuation area should be at least 20 m away from the location where the leak occurred. The method used in this research can quantify the risk of liquefied petroleum gas storage, which is helpful for the design of intrinsic safety and the formulation of quantitative specifications.

Keywords： safety engineering liquefied petroleum gas quantitative risk analysis leakage explosion consequence calculation

Received 2021-05-10;

Fund:国家重点研发项目(2018YFC0808600);炼油工艺与催化剂国家工程研究中心(中国石油化工股份有限公司石油化工科学研究院)开放基金。

Corresponding Authors: 郝琳,副研究员,E-mail:haolin@tju.edu.cn;朱振兴,研究员,E-mail:zhuzx.ripp@sinopec.com。 Email: haolin@tju.edu.cn;朱振兴,研究员,E-mail:zhuzx.ripp@sinopec.com

About author: 高思达(1997-),男,硕士研究生,现从事化工安全方面的研究。

引用本文:

高思达, 郝琳, 朱振兴, 卫宏远.液化石油气(LPG)泄漏事故定量风险分析[J]. 化学工业与工程, 2023,40(4): 78-85

GAO Sida, HAO Lin, ZHU Zhenxing, WEI Hongyuan.Quantitative risk analysis(QRA) of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) leakage accident[J]. Chemcial Industry and Engineering, 2023,40(4): 78-85

[1] BARIHA N, MISHRA I M, SRIVASTAVA V C. Fire and explosion hazard analysis during surface transport of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG):A case study of LPG truck tanker accident in Kannur, Kerala, India[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2016, 40:449-460
[2] LANDUCCI G, TUGNOLI A, BUSINI V, et al. The viareggio LPG accident:Lessons learnt[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2011, 24(4):466-476
[3] PASMAN H, RENIERS G. Past, present and future of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) and the incentive it obtained from Land-Use Planning (LUP)[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2014, 28:2-9
[4] FROELING H A J, DRÖGE M T, NANE G F, et al. Quantitative risk analysis of a hazardous jet fire event for hydrogen transport in natural gas transmission pipelines[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46(17):10411-10422
[5] ROSA A C, DE SOUZA I T, TERRA A, et al. Quantitative risk analysis applied to refrigeration's industry using computational modeling[J]. Results in Engineering, 2021, doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2021.100202
[6] 黄艾丹, 李长俊, 吴瑕, 等. 基于多态模糊BN的石化动设备故障概率定量风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2021, 28(2):36-43 HUANG Aidan, LI Changjun, WU Xia, et al. Quantitative risk assessment of mechanical equipments failure probability in petrochemistry industry based on multiple-state fuzzy BN[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2021, 28(2):36-43(in Chinese)
[7] 马月鹏, 李竹霞, 倪凯, 等. 化工园区区域定量风险评价及其应用研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2012, 12(5):239-242 MA Yuepeng, LI Zhuxia, NI Kai, et al. A quantitative chemical industry area risk assessment model[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2012, 12(5):239-242(in Chinese)
[8] 邓海发, 陈国明. 基于CFD的深水钻井溢油事故定量风险评估[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2012, 12(2):233-236 DENG Haifa, CHEN Guoming. CFD-based quantitative hazard assessment of oil spills in deepwater drilling[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2012, 12(2):233-236(in Chinese)
[9] 韩朱旸, 翁文国. 燃气管网定量风险分析方法综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2009, 19(7):154-164, 177 HAN Zhuyang, WENG Wenguo. An overview of quantitative risk analysis methods for natural gas pipelines[J]. China Safety Science Journal (CSSJ), 2009, 19(7):154-164, 177(in Chinese)
[10] ERMAK D L. A Description of the SLAB Model[R]. CA (USA):Lawrence Livermore National Lab, 1989
[11] CCPS. Guidelines for consequence analysis of chemical releases, center for chemical process safety[M]. New York:American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1999
[12] MARTINSEN W E, MARX J D. An improved model for the prediction of radiant heat from fireballs[C]//International Conference and Workshop on Modelling the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials. San Francisco, California:CCPS, 1999:605-621
[13] MERCX W P M, VAN DEN BERG A C, VAN LEEUWEN D. Application of correlations to quantify the source strength of vapour cloud explosions in realistic situations. Final report for the project:'GAMES'[R]. TNO Report PML, 1998
[14] VOORBRURG T. Methods for the determination of possible damag (Green Book)[R]. The Hague:Directorate-General of Labour of Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment CPR, 1992
[15] VAN DEN BOSH C J H, WETERINGS R. Methods for the calculation of physical effects (Yellow Book)[R]. The Hague (NL):Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, 1997