基于维度事故载荷的控制室抗爆强度设计

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2020-1492

化工进展 ›› 2021, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (6): 3543-3552.DOI: 10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2020-1492

• 化工园区 • 上一篇

基于维度事故载荷的控制室抗爆强度设计

王海清¹(), 孙浩¹, 张之秀²

^1.中国石油大学(华东)机电工程学院安全科学与工程系，山东青岛 266580
^2.中国石化海南炼油化工有限公司商储海南分公司HSE部，海南洋浦578101

收稿日期:2020-07-31 修回日期:2020-09-03 出版日期:2021-06-06 发布日期:2021-06-22
通讯作者: 王海清
作者简介:王海清（1974—），教授，博士生导师，从事安全仪表系统/火气系统、工艺灾害分析、报警管理和可靠性RAM分析等研究。E-mail：wanghaiqing@upc.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划“两安融合仪表典型行业应用验证”(2019YFB2006305);山东省自然科学基金(ZR201702160283)

Anti-explosion strength design of control room based on dimensioning accident load

WANG Haiqing¹(), SUN Hao¹, ZHANG Zhixiu²

^1.Department of Safety Science and Engineering, College of Electrical Mechanical Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, Shandong, China
^2.HSE Department of Commercial Reserve Hainan Branch, Sinopec Hainan Refining & Chemical Co. , Ltd. , Yangpu 578101, Hainan, China

Received:2020-07-31 Revised:2020-09-03 Online:2021-06-06 Published:2021-06-22
Contact: WANG Haiqing

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

设计事故载荷（design accident load）被广泛应用于化工厂关键设备、建筑物的强度设计，以最严重工况下能够承受的最大意外载荷为强度设计的参考值，然而风险是由概率和后果共同度量的，在强度设计时若只考虑事故后果则有可能造成过度设计。本文针对该问题提出了一种基于维度事故载荷（dimensioning accident load，DAL）的确定控制室抗爆强度的方法，构建事故场景集并计算了各场景发生概率，基于NORSOK Z-013和风险可接受标准进行场景的筛选以减小场景的数量和不确定性，对可信场景的泄漏模拟获得可燃气云的体积和位置分布，并通过爆炸模拟计算每一个场景的爆炸超压值，根据可接受风险标准确定控制室的DAL。以控制室的DAL作为峰值入射超压计算控制室的爆炸载荷，以此为依据判断控制室应采取的抗爆结构形式。厂区案例分析结果表明，基于维度事故载荷的确定控制室抗爆强度方法从概率和后果两个角度综合量化了控制室的抗爆载荷，克服了设计事故载荷的缺点，在满足个人可接受风险标准的条件下能够减小设计成本，避免过度设计，为控制室的强度设计和安全屏障设计提供一定的理论依据。

关键词: 安全, 爆炸, 计算流体力学, 场景筛选, 维度事故载荷

Abstract:

Design accident load is widely used in the strength design of key equipment and buildings in chemical plants. The maximum load under the most severe working conditions is taken as the reference value of strength design to reduce the risks suffered by the plant. However, the risk is determined by accident probability and consequence. If only the accident consequence was taken into consideration in the strength design, overdesign might occur. To solve this problem, a method to determine the anti-explosion strength of the control room based on the dimensional accident load (DAL) is proposed. The accident scenario set is developed and the probability of each explosion scenario is calculated. The scenarios were screened based on the NORSOK Z-013 standard and acceptable risk criteria to reduce the number and uncertainty of accident scenarios. The volume and position distribution of the flammable gas cloud is obtained by the dispersion simulation of the credible scenario, and the explosion overpressure of each scenario is calculated through the explosion simulation The DAL of the control room is determined according to the acceptable risk standard. The DAL of the control room is used as the peak overpressure to calculate the explosion load of the control room The anti-explosion structure should be adopted in the control room according to the explosion load. The results showed that the method of determining the anti-explosion strength of the control room based on the DAL quantified the anti-explosion load of the control room from probability and consequence. It overcomes the disadvantage of design accident load, not only effectively select credible scenarios, but also provide theoretical support for the strength design and safety barrier design of the central control room.

Key words: safety, explosion, computational fluid dynamics, scenario screening, dimensioning accident load

中图分类号:

X937

王海清, 孙浩, 张之秀. 基于维度事故载荷的控制室抗爆强度设计[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(6): 3543-3552.

WANG Haiqing, SUN Hao, ZHANG Zhixiu. Anti-explosion strength design of control room based on dimensioning accident load[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(6): 3543-3552.

图/表 14

图1 控制室抗爆强度分析流程

表1 泄漏源孔径分类

类别	孔径范围/mm
小孔泄漏	1~10
中孔泄漏	10~50
大孔泄漏	50~150
破裂	>150

图2 DAL分析流程

图3 厂区模型图

表2 风速、风向联合分布概率

风向	概率/%
风向	0 $~$ 2m/s	2 $~$ 4m/s	4 $~$ 6m/s	6 $~$ 8m/s	8 $~$ 10m/s	10 $~$ 12m/s	12 $~$ 14m/s
北N	1.883	12.779	10.059	4.805	1.543	0.256	0.014
东北NE	1.042	3.006	0.596	0.121	0.040	0.000	0.000
东E	1.477	5.050	3.167	0.935	0.216	0.040	0.014
东南SE	0.699	18.560	4.387	0.800	0.095	0.040	0.026
南S	2.369	4.940	2.073	0.556	0.040	0.026	0.000
西南SW	2.343	8.948	2.830	0.501	0.069	0.026	0.000
西W	0.135	0.461	0.026	0.040	0.026	0.000	0.000
西北NW	0.935	1.503	0.420	0.069	0.014	0.000	0.000

表2 风速、风向联合分布概率

风向	概率/%
风向	0 $~$ 2m/s	2 $~$ 4m/s	4 $~$ 6m/s	6 $~$ 8m/s	8 $~$ 10m/s	10 $~$ 12m/s	12 $~$ 14m/s
北N	1.883	12.779	10.059	4.805	1.543	0.256	0.014
东北NE	1.042	3.006	0.596	0.121	0.040	0.000	0.000
东E	1.477	5.050	3.167	0.935	0.216	0.040	0.014
东南SE	0.699	18.560	4.387	0.800	0.095	0.040	0.026
南S	2.369	4.940	2.073	0.556	0.040	0.026	0.000
西南SW	2.343	8.948	2.830	0.501	0.069	0.026	0.000
西W	0.135	0.461	0.026	0.040	0.026	0.000	0.000
西北NW	0.935	1.503	0.420	0.069	0.014	0.000	0.000

表3 泄漏孔径及泄漏概率

泄漏孔径/mm	泄漏概率
50	1.891×10^-6/m
100	1.862×10^-7/m
200	1.547×10^-8/m

图4 泄漏场景分析流程

图5 爆炸极限范围内的最大和平均可燃气云体积

图6 气云体积累积分布

图7 不同风速下的气云分布图

图8 控制室DAL评估流程

图9 气云体积与爆炸超压之间的关系

图10 控制室超压-频率超越曲线

表4 控制室爆炸载荷计算值

爆炸冲击波参数	基于DAL方法计算值	最差工况计算值
波速/m·s^-1	350	360
峰值动压/kPa	0.0382	0.35
冲击波波长/m	35	36
前墙
冲击波超压/kPa	3.34	10.45
正压等效作用时间/s	0.076	0.075
侧墙及屋面
爆炸载荷/kPa	2.95	8.95
超压升压时间/s	0.017	0.017
后墙
有效冲击波超压/kPa	2.95	8.95
超压升压时间/s	0.017	0.017

参考文献 13

1	NORSOK Z-013. Risk and emergency preparedness analysis[S]. NORSOK Standard, Oslo Norway Latest Version, 2010.
2	张瑞华, 陈国华, 张晖, 等. TNO多能法在蒸气云爆炸模拟评价中的工程应用[J]. 华南理工大学学报（自然科学版）, 2006, 34(5): 109-114.
	ZHANG Ruihua, CHEN Guohua, ZHANG Hui, et al. Engineering applications of TNO multi-energy method in VCE simulation assessment[J]. Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2006, 34(5): 109-114.
3	CHEN C, KHAKZAD N, RENIERS G. Dynamic vulnerability assessment of process plants with respect to vapor cloud explosions[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2020, 200: 106934.
4	QIAO A, ZHANG S. Advanced CFD modeling on vapor dispersion and vapor cloud explosion[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process industries, 2010, 23(6): 843-848.
5	HANSEN O R, GAVELLI F, DAVIS S G, et al. Equivalent cloud methods used for explosion risk and consequence studies[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process industries, 2013, 26(3): 511-527.
6	HANSEN O R, KJELLANDER M, PAPPAS J. Explosion loading on equipment from CFD simulations[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process industries, 2016, 44: 601-613.
7	PAIK J, CZUJKO J, KIM B, et al. Quantitative assessment of hydrocarbon explosion and fire risks in offshore installations[J]. Marine Structures, 2011, 24(2): 73-96.
8	齐心歌, 王海清, 田英帅, 等. 基于等价气云爆炸风险评估的气体防护区域定量划分[J]. 化工进展, 2019, 38(3): 1587-1594.
	QI Xin’ge, WANG Haiqing, TIAN Yingshuai, et al. Quantitative division of gas protection area based on risk assessment of equivalent gas cloud explosion[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2019, 38(3): 1587-1594.
9	CROSTHWAITE P J, FITZPATRICH R D, HURST N W. Risk assessment for the siting of developments near liquefied petroleum gas installations[C]//IChemE Symposium Series No. 110, 1988.
10	Rijnmond Public Authority. A risk analysis of six potentially hazardous industrial objects in the rijnmond area—A pilot study[M]. Dordrecht: COVO, D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1982.
11	SPOUGE J. New generic leak frequencies for process equipment[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2005, 24(4): 249-257.
12	HUANG Y M, MA G W, LI J D. Multi-level explosion risk analysis (MLERA) for accidental gas explosion events in super-large FLNG facilities[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process industries, 2017, 45: 242-254.
13	UIJT DE HAAG A. Guidelines for quantitative risk assessment[M]. The Hague (NL): Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, 1999.

[1]	王云飞, 秦蕊, 郑利军, 李焱, 李清平. 旋转填充床CFD模拟研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 1-9.
[2]	孙继鹏, 韩靖, 唐杨超, 闫汉博, 张杰瑶, 肖苹, 吴峰. 硫黄湿法成型过程数值模拟与操作参数优化[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 189-196.
[3]	罗成, 范晓勇, 朱永红, 田丰, 崔楼伟, 杜崇鹏, 王飞利, 李冬, 郑化安. 中低温煤焦油加氢反应器不同分配器中液体分布的CFD模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(9): 4538-4549.
[4]	卜治丞, 焦波, 林海花, 孙洪源. 脉动热管计算流体力学模型与研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(8): 4167-4181.
[5]	郭晋, 张耕, 陈国华, 朱鸣, 谭粤, 李蔚, 夏莉, 胡昆. 车载液氢气瓶设计技术的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(8): 4221-4229.
[6]	乔旭, 张竹修. 化工本征安全技术发展路径的思考与探索[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3319-3324.
[7]	吴展华, 盛敏. 绝热加速量热仪在反应安全风险评估应用中的常见问题[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3374-3382.
[8]	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.
[9]	汪嘉欣, 潘勇, 熊欣怡, 万晓月, 王建超. 甲苯一步催化硝化制备二硝基甲苯反应过程及危险性[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3420-3430.
[10]	闫兴清, 戴行涛, 喻健良, 李岳, 韩冰, 胡军. 高压氢气泄漏射流研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(3): 1118-1128.
[11]	张艺璇, 胡伟, 刘梦瑶, 鞠敬鸽, 赵义侠, 康卫民. 聚合物电解质在锌离子电池中的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(3): 1397-1410.
[12]	邱沫凡, 蒋琳, 刘荣正, 刘兵, 唐亚平, 刘马林. 气固流化床化学反应数值模拟中颗粒尺度模型研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5047-5058.
[13]	马文杰, 姚卫棠. 共价有机框架（COFs）在锂离子电池中的应用[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5339-5352.
[14]	孙培琴, 陈延青, 孔祥北, 金满平, 刘付芳. 醋酸酐与水在化学反应量热方法确认中的应用[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(S1): 91-96.
[15]	张清清, 毕海普, 舒中俊, 欧红香, 王尚彬, 王钧奇, 潘煜. 泡沫灭火剂中全氟辛烷磺酸类物质的管控行为及替代物研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(S1): 340-350.

基于维度事故载荷的控制室抗爆强度设计

Anti-explosion strength design of control room based on dimensioning accident load

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 13

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价