两池火耦合作用下柴油拱顶罐热响应的数值模拟

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2020-0075

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

化工园区多池火事故是典型的高后果低概率事件。鉴于目前两池火辐射模型存在一定局限性，本文采用数值模拟方法，以3个直线排布的5000m³柴油拱顶罐为研究场景，从热释放速率、火焰形态、热辐射强度三方面分析两池火燃烧特性，并与单池火场景对比，考虑储罐间距这一影响因素，进一步研究目标储罐热响应。结果表明：采用GB 50160—2008（2018年版）规定的防火间距，两燃烧罐产生的池火会发生耦合作用，并得出目标储罐受到的热辐射强度分布，最高热辐射达17.04kW/m²；两池火作用下目标储罐的温度、Mises应力与失效时间分别为644℃、356MPa、936s，单池火为488℃、280MPa、2880s，目标储罐在两池火作用下的变形也比单池火更为严重；随着储罐间距增加，目标储罐的温度与Mises应力逐渐减小，失效时间逐渐增加，当储罐间距为标准防火间距的2.5倍（20m）时，失效时间为2800s，与单池火作用产生的失效时间2880s较为接近。本研究可为优化储罐防火间距及区域韧性提升提供理论指导。

关键词: 两池火, 柴油拱顶罐, 燃烧特性, 热响应, 数值模拟

Abstract:

Multi-pool fire in chemical clusters are typical high impact and low probability accidents. In view of limitation of the current double-pool fire radiation models, numerical simulation method was used to analyze the combustion characteristics of double-pool fire in three 5000m³ diesel dome tanks arranged in straight line based on heat release rate, flame shape and heat radiation intensity. Compared to single-pool fire scenario, taking influence factor of the tank spacing into consideration, thermal response of target tank was analyzed. The results showed coupling effect was observed when pool fire generated by two combustion tanks with the fire separation distance specified in the standard GB 50160—2008 (2018 edition). The heat radiation intensity distribution of the target storage tank was obtained with the highest heat radiation of 17.04kW/m². The temperature, Mises stress and failure time of the target tank under the action of the double-pool fire were 644℃, 356MPa, 936s, respectively, while they were 488℃, 280MPa, 2880s under the action of the single pool fire, respectively. The deformation of the target tank under the action of double-pool fire was also more serious than that under the action of single-pool fire. With the increase of tank spacing, temperature and Mises stress of the target storage tank gradually decreased, failure time of the target tank gradually increased. When the distance between double tanks was 2.5times (20m) of the standard fire separation distance, the failure time was 2800s, closing to 2880s caused by the single pool fire. The study can provide theoretical guidance for optimizing the fire separation distance of storage tanks and improvement of area resilience.

Key words: double-pool fire, diesel dome tank, combustion characteristic, thermal response, numerical simulation

中图分类号:

X937

陈国华, 张心语, 周志航, 曾涛. 两池火耦合作用下柴油拱顶罐热响应的数值模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2020, 39(11): 4342-4350.

Guohua CHEN, Xinyu ZHANG, Zhihang ZHOU, Tao ZENG. Numerical simulation on thermal response of diesel dome tank under the impact of double-pool fire[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(11): 4342-4350.

参考文献

1	贾梅生, 陈国华, 胡昆. 化工园区多米诺事故风险评价与防控技术综述[J]. 化工进展, 2017, 36(4): 1534-1543.
1	JIA Meisheng, CHEN Guohua, HU Kun. Review of risk assessment and pre-control of domino effect in chemical industry park[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2017, 36(4): 1534-1543.
2	ABDOLHAMIDZADEH B, ABBASI T, RASHTCHIAN D, et al. Domino effect in process-industry accidents-an inventory of past events and identification of some patterns[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2011, 24(5): 575-593.
3	VASANTH S, TAUSEEF S M, ABBASI T, et al. Multiple pool fires: occurrence, simulation, modeling and management[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2014, 29(1): 103-121.
4	HE Peixiang, WANG Peng, WANG Kai, et al. The evolution of flame height and air flow for double rectangular pool fires[J]. Fuel, 2019, 237: 486-493.
5	戚文军. 兰州“1·7”石化公司爆炸事故扑救及处置对策[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2010(3): 75-77.
5	QI Wenjun. Fire-fighting and countermeasures of Lanzhou “1·7” Petrochemical Corporation explosion[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2010(3): 75-77.
6	张帅. 多重池火灾影响下的化工储罐区风险评估研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳航空航天大学, 2017.
6	ZHANG Shuai. Research of chemical storage tank area risk assessment under the effect of multiple pool fires[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Aerospace University, 2017.
7	石油化工企业设计防火标准: (2018版)[S].Standard for fire prevention design of petrochemical enterprises: GB50160—
7	2008(2018 Edition)[S].
8	邢志祥. 火灾环境下液化气储罐热响应动力过程的研究[D]. 南京: 南京工业大学, 2004.
8	XING Zhixiang. A study on the thermal response dynamic process of liquefied gas tanks subjected to fire environment[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Technology, 2004.
9	KHAILD M A. Fires in large atmospheric storage tanks and their effect on adjacent tanks[D]. Leicestershire, UK: Loughborough University, 2012.
10	张宝良, 孙建刚, 李姗姗, 等. 原油储罐火灾热辐射特性实验[J]. 油气田地面工程, 2014, 33(3): 39-40.
10	ZHANG Baoliang, SUN Jiangang, LI Shanshan, et al. Experiment on thermal radiation characteristics of crude oil storage tank[J]. Oil-Gasfield Surface Engineering, 2014, 33(3): 39-40.
11	陈福真, 张明广, 王妍, 等. 罐区池火灾多米诺效应试验研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(11): 31-36.
11	CHEN Fuzhen, ZHANG Mingguang, WANG Yan, et al. Experimental study on domino effect in pool fire in tank farm[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(11): 31-36.
12	REINDERS J E A, VELTHUIS J F M, SPRUIJT M P N. Pressure and temperature increase of LPG in a thermally coated pressure vessel exposed to fire: experimental and model results[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2019, 57: 55-60.
13	BI Mingshu, REN Jingjie, ZHAO Bo, et al. Effect of fire engulfment on thermal response of LPG tanks[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2011, 192(2): 874-879.
14	赵金龙, 黄弘, 屈克思, 等. 基于数值模拟的大型原油储罐热辐射响应研究[J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 48(6): 245-252.
14	ZHAO Jinlong, HUANG Hong, QU Kesi, et al. Research on thermal radiation response of large crude oil tank based on numerical simulation method[J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2017, 48(6): 245-252.
15	PANTOUSA D. Numerical study on thermal buckling of empty thin-walled steel tanks under multiple pool-fire scenarios[J]. Thin-Walled Structures, 2018, 131: 577-594.
16	WAN H X, GAO Z H, JI J, et al. Predicting heat fluxes received by horizontal targets from two buoyant turbulent diffusion flames of propane burning in still air[J]. Combustion and Flame, 2018, 190: 260-269.
17	WAN H X, GAO Z H, JI J, et al. Experimental study on flame radiant heat flux from two heptane storage pools and its application to estimating safety distance[J]. Energy, 2019, 182: 11-20.
18	WAN Huaxian, JI Jie, LI Kaiyuan, et al. Effect of air entrainment on the height of buoyant turbulent diffusion flames for two fires in open space[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2017, 36(2): 3003-3010.
19	ZHOU Kuibin, WANG Xiuzhen. Thermal radiation modelling of pool fire with consideration on the nonuniform temperature in flame volume[J]. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 2019, 138: 12-23.
20	AHMADI O, MORTAZAVI S B, PASDARSHAHRI H, et al. Consequence analysis of large-scale pool fire in oil storage terminal based on computational fluid dynamic (CFD)[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019, 123: 379-389.
21	LI Yunhao, JIANG Juncheng, ZHANG Qingwu, et al. Static and dynamic flame model effects on thermal buckling: fixed-roof tanks adjacent to an ethanol pool-fire[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019, 127: 23-35.
22	宗辉. 罐区储罐群失效概率及风险评价研究[D]. 南京: 东南大学, 2016.
22	ZONG Hui. Research on failure probability and risk evaluation for storages in storage firms[D]. Nanjing: Southeast University, 2016.
23	BORJA R, CHRISTIAN M, ELSA P, et al. A priori validation of CFD modelling of hydrocarbon pool fires[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 56: 18-31.
24	COZZANI V, GUBINELLI G, ANTONIONI G, et al. The assessment of risk caused by Domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2005, 127(1/2/3): 14-30.
25	YUAN Guanglin, SHU Qianjin, HUANG Zhaohui, et al. An experimental investigation of properties of Q345 steel pipe at elevated temperatures[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2016, 118: 41-48.
26	BEREMAN T L, LAVINE A S. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer[M]. New Jersey, USA:John Wiley & Sons, 2017.
27	PANTOUSA D, TZAROS K, KEFAKI M A. Thermal buckling behaviour of unstiffened and stiffened fixed-roof tanks under non-uniform heating[J]. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2018, 143: 162-179.

[1]	王太, 苏硕, 李晟瑞, 马小龙, 刘春涛. 交流电场中贴壁气泡的动力学行为[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 133-141.
[2]	陈匡胤, 李蕊兰, 童杨, 沈建华. 质子交换膜燃料电池气体扩散层结构与设计研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 246-259.
[3]	郭强, 赵文凯, 肖永厚. 增强流体扰动强化变压吸附甲硫醚/氮气分离的数值模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 64-72.
[4]	邵博识, 谭宏博. 锯齿波纹板对挥发性有机物低温脱除过程强化模拟分析[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 84-93.
[5]	刘炫麟, 王驿凯, 戴苏洲, 殷勇高. 热泵中氨基甲酸铵分解反应特性及反应器结构优化[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(9): 4522-4530.
[6]	赵曦, 马浩然, 李平, 黄爱玲. 错位碰撞型微混合器混合性能的模拟分析与优化设计[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(9): 4559-4572.
[7]	叶振东, 刘涵, 吕静, 张亚宁, 刘洪芝. 基于钙镁二元盐的热化学储能反应器的性能优化[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(8): 4307-4314.
[8]	俞俊楠, 俞建峰, 程洋, 齐一搏, 化春键, 蒋毅. 基于深度学习的变宽度浓度梯度芯片性能预测[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3383-3393.
[9]	单雪影, 张濛, 张家傅, 李玲玉, 宋艳, 李锦春. 阻燃型环氧树脂的燃烧数值模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3413-3419.
[10]	王硕, 张亚新, 朱博韬. 基于灰色预测模型的水煤浆输送管道冲蚀磨损寿命预测[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3431-3442.
[11]	周龙大, 赵立新, 徐保蕊, 张爽, 刘琳. 电场-旋流耦合强化多相介质分离研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3443-3456.
[12]	张晨宇, 王宁, 徐洪涛, 罗祝清. 纳米颗粒强化传热的多级潜热储热器性能评价[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2332-2342.
[13]	卢兴福, 戴波, 杨世亮. 转鼓内圆柱形颗粒混合的超二次曲面离散单元法模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2252-2261.
[14]	马润梅, 杨海超, 李正大, 李双喜, 赵祥, 章国庆. 表面强化镀层对高速轴承腔密封端面变形及摩擦磨损影响分析[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(4): 1688-1697.
[15]	张成松, 张静, 龚斌, 李明洋, 袁佳新, 李宏业. 自吸射流柔性搅拌桨振动特性[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(4): 1728-1738.