海洋平台含硫化氢天然气泄漏爆炸连锁事故后果动态评估

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2020-2512

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

硫化氢毒害载荷与油气爆炸载荷是海洋油气作业安全进行的重大威胁。基于此，本文面向海洋平台含硫化氢天然气泄漏爆炸连锁事故，考虑连锁事故发展过程中毒害载荷与超压载荷连续存在的必然性，提出多危险载荷事故后果动态评估方法。以假想的海洋平台含硫化氢天然气泄漏爆炸连锁事故为例，考虑紧急关断系统与放空系统的干预设置动态泄漏速率。以泄漏为触发事件考虑事故的灾变演化，兼顾泄漏硫化氢积聚状态的时空发展与作业人员的应急疏散开展硫化氢毒害后果动态评估；结合延迟点火时刻作业人员实时位置爆炸载荷开展爆炸危害后果评估。引入风险理念，基于风险的可加性对两种危险载荷导致的影响进行综合评估。研究结果可以为海洋平台的应急救援及应急资源的配置提供支持。

关键词: 含硫化氢天然气, 毒害影响, 爆炸影响, 综合评估, 应急疏散, 动态

Abstract:

Both H₂S poison load and explosion overpressure load pose grave threats to the offshore oil and gas industry. Accordingly, the chain accidents of H₂S-containing natural gas release and explosion on the offshore platform were concerned for the first time. Considering the certainty of the continuous existence of poison load and overpressure load, a dynamic approach was proposed to realize the comprehensive assessment of the severity of multi adverse effects on the sufferers. The proposed approach was illustrated by a hypothetical chain accident concerning H₂S-containing natural gas release and explosion on an offshore platform. The dynamic assessment for the toxic impact due to H₂S release was conducted considering the emergency evacuation and the temporal-spatial variation of the H₂S profile. The adverse impact due to explosion was estimated according to the explosion loads of the real-time location of the sufferers at the time of ignition. Then the risk-based concept was adopted to combine these two kinds of adverse effects based on the additivity characteristic of risk. The research results would provide support for emergency rescue and emergency resource allocation on offshore platforms.

Key words: H₂S-containing natural gas, poison impact, explosion impact, comprehensive consideration, emergency evacuation, dynamic

中图分类号:

杨冬冬, 陈国明, 付建民, 师吉浩, 戴子良, 刘健. 海洋平台含硫化氢天然气泄漏爆炸连锁事故后果动态评估[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(11): 6393-6400.

YANG Dongdong, CHEN Guoming, FU Jianmin, SHI Jihao, DAI Ziliang, LIU Jian. Consequences assessment of H₂S-containing natural gas release and explosion accidents on offshore platforms[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(11): 6393-6400.

图/表 15

图1 含硫化氢天然气泄漏爆炸连锁事故后果评估方法

表1 泄漏气体成分

组分	体积分数/%
甲烷	27
乙烷	32
丙烷	16
戊烷	23
硫化氢	2

图2 海洋平台下层甲板布局

图3 动态泄漏速率时程曲线

图4 海洋平台几何模型

图5 Q9动态变化曲线

图6 距离下层甲板1.5m工艺区硫化氢浓度分布

图7 下层甲板工艺区爆炸超压峰值分布

图8 应急疏散轨迹

表2 海洋平台作业人员移动速度

年龄区间/岁	平均移动速度/m·s^-1
年龄区间/岁	平地	上楼梯	下楼梯
≤30	1.48	1.02	0.67
30~50	1.30	0.86	0.63
≥50	1.12	0.67	0.51

图9 初始位置为A作业人员暴露硫化氢浓度(应急疏散)

表3 事故后果关键参数

参数	考虑应急疏散
参数	毒害影响	爆炸超压影响
P_r	0.095	0.798
R_j	0.95	7.98
R	8.93

图10 C点爆炸超压曲线

图11 A点爆炸超压曲线

图12 初始位置为P3作业人员不同应急行为暴露硫化氢浓度

参考文献 28

1	李晶晶, 陈国明, 朱渊. 海洋油气平台火灾疏散耦合风险[J]. 石油学报, 2016, 37(12): 1557-1562.
	LI J J, CHEN G M, ZHU Y. Coupling risk of fire evacuation for offshore oil and gas platforms[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2016, 37(12): 1557-1562.
2	YANG R C, KHAN F, YANG M, et al. A numerical fire simulation approach for effectiveness analysis of fire safety measures in floating liquefied natural gas facilities[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2018, 157: 219-233.
3	YANG D D, CHEN G M, SHI J H, et al. Effect of gas composition on dispersion characteristics of blowout gas on offshore platform[J]. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 2019, 11(2): 914-922.
4	杨冬冬, 陈国明, 师吉浩. 海洋平台井喷含硫天然气扩散危险区域研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2017, 13(8): 114-120.
	YANG D D, CHEN G M, SHI J H. Research on dangerous region of H₂S-containing natural gas diffusion resulting from offshore platform blowout[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2017, 13(8): 114-120.
5	杨冬冬, 陈国明, 朱渊, 等. 海洋平台泄漏硫化氢中毒事故后果动态评估[J]. 化工学报, 2020, 71(8): 3839-3848.
	YANG D D, CHEN G M, ZHU Y, et al. Dynamic assessment of consequences for poisoning accidents caused by H₂S release on offshore platforms[J]. CIESC Journal, 2020, 71(8): 3839-3848.
6	刘振翼, 张应安, 钱新明, 等. 酸性气田井喷点火有效空间范围数字模拟[J]. 石油学报, 2009, 30(4): 621-624.
	LIU Z Y, ZHANG Y A, QIAN X M, et al. Numerical simulation on available ignition range of well blowout in sour gas field[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2009, 30(4): 621-624.
7	ZHANG B, CHEN G M. Quantitative risk analysis of toxic gas release caused poisoning—A CFD and dose-response model combined approach[J]. Process Safety & Environmental Protection, 2010, 88(4): 253-262.
8	杨冬冬, 陈国明, 师吉浩, 等. 海洋平台爆炸事故后果动态评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(11): 121-126.
	YANG D D, CHEN G M, SHI J H, et al. A dynamic assessment method for consequences of explosion accidents on offshore platforms[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(11): 121-126.
9	魏超南, 陈国明, 刘康. 浮式生产系统泄漏天然气爆燃特性与安全区域[J]. 石油学报, 2014(4): 178-186.
	WEI C N, CHEN G M, LIU K. Leakage gas deflagration characteristics and safety area of FPSO[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2014(4): 178-186.
10	HUSER A, FOYN T, SKOTTENE M. A CFD based approach to the correlation of maximum explosion overpressure to process plant parameters[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2009, 22(3): 324-331.
11	SHI J H, LI J D, HAO H, et al. An integrated model for vent area design of hydrocarbon-air mixture explosion inside cubic enclosures with obstacles[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2019, 57: 61-72.
12	师吉浩, 朱渊, 陈国明, 等. 基于PI模型的爆炸载荷下波纹板防爆墙抗爆能力评估[J]. 振动与冲击, 2017, 36(6): 188-195.
	SHI J H, ZHU Y, CHEN G M, et al. Assessment of blast resistance capacities of corrugated blast walls based on the P-I model[J]. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2017, 36(6): 188-195.
13	BAGHERI M, ALAMDARI A, DAVOUDI M. Quantitative risk assessment of sour gas transmission pipelines using CFD[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2016, 31: 108-118.
14	MA Q C, ZHANG L B. CFD simulation study on gas dispersion for risk assessment: a case study of sour gas well blowout[J]. Safety Science, 2011, 49: 1289-1295.
15	ZHANG J W, LEI D, FENG W X. An approach for estimating toxic releases of H₂S-containing natural gas[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2014, 264(2): 350-362.
16	朱渊, 陈国明, 刘德绪. 复杂地形天然气净化厂脱硫装置泄漏事故模拟及危害评价[J]. 化工学报, 2010, 61(10): 2758-2764.
	ZHU Y, CHEN G M, LIU D X. Simulation and assessment on leakage hazard from gas sweetening unit of sour gas processing plant in complex terrain[J]. CIESC Journal, 2010, 61(10): 2758-2764.
17	DADASHZADEH M, ABBASSI R, KHAN F, et al. Explosion modeling and analysis of BP deepwater horizon accident[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 57(8): 150-160.
18	AZZI C, ROGSTADKJERNET L, WINGERDEN K, et al. Influence of scenario choices when performing CFD simulations for explosion risk analyses: focus on dispersion[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2016, 41: 87-96.
19	罗振敏, 张群, 王华, 等. 基于FLACS的受限空间瓦斯爆炸数值模拟[J]. 煤炭学报, 2013, 38(8): 1381-1387.
	LUO Z M, ZHANG Q, WANG H, et al. Numerical simulation of gas explosion in confined space with FLACS[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2013, 38(8): 1381-1387.
20	SHI J H, ZHU Y, KONG D P, et al. Stochastic analysis of explosion risk for ultra-deep-water semi-submersible offshore platforms[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2019, 172: 844-856.
21	ASSAEL M, KAKOSIMOS K. Fires, explosions, and toxic gas dispersions: effects calculation and risk analysis[M].Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2010.
22	CCPS. Guidelines for consequence analysis of chemical releases[M]. New York: Wiley-AIChE, 1999.
23	DADASHZADEH M, KHAN F, ABBASSI R, et al. Combustion products toxicity risk assessment in an offshore installation[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2014, 92(6): 616-624.
24	LI J D, MA G W, HAO H, et al. Optimal blast wall layout design to mitigate gas dispersion and explosion on a cylindrical FLNG platform[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2017(49): 481-492.
25	YANG D D, CHEN G M, DAI Z L. Accident modeling of toxic gas-containing flammable gas release and explosion on an offshore platform[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 65: 104118.
26	中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会. 含硫化氢油气井安全钻井推荐作法: [S]. 北京: 石油工业出版社, 2005.
	National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Recommended practice for safe drilling operations involving hydrogen sulfide: [S]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2005.
27	International Maritime Organization. MSC.1-Circ.1238—Guidelines for Evacuation Analysis for New and Existing Passenger Ships[Z/OL]. (2007-10-30)[2020-12-16]. .
28	MUSHARRAF M, HASSAN J, KHAN F, et al. Human reliability assessment during offshore emergency conditions[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 59: 19-27.

[1]	张瑞杰, 刘志林, 王俊文, 张玮, 韩德求, 李婷, 邹雄. 水冷式复叠制冷系统的在线动态模拟与优化[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 124-132.
[2]	张振, 李丹, 陈辰, 吴菁岚, 应汉杰, 乔浩. 吸附树脂对唾液酸的分离纯化[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(8): 4153-4158.
[3]	余希希, 张金帅, 雷文, 刘承果. 基于动态共价键自修复的光固化高分子材料研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3589-3599.
[4]	赵景斌, 王彦富, 王涛, 马伟恺, 王琛. 基于蒙特卡洛模拟和动态事件树的储罐脆弱性评估[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(5): 2751-2759.
[5]	刘广平, 陆振能, 龚宇烈. 高温热泵蒸汽系统的动态响应及扰动优化[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(4): 1719-1727.
[6]	温芳, 张勃. 长余辉发光材料在应急疏散标识中的应用形态[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(S1): 282-292.
[7]	胡锦文, 孟广源, 张之杰, 张宁, 张芯婉, 陈鹏, 李童, 刘勇弟, 张乐华. 人工智能在电化学水处理过程中的应用[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(S1): 497-506.
[8]	邱艺娟, 林佳伟, 秦济锐, 吴嘉茵, 林凤采, 卢贝丽, 唐丽荣, 黄彪. 双重动态共价键交联纳米纤维素导电水凝胶及其柔性传感器[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(8): 4406-4416.
[9]	向晟, 王超, 庄钰, 顾偲雯, 张磊, 都健. 变压精馏分离乙酸甲酯-甲醇-乙酸乙酯体系的设计与控制[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(8): 4065-4076.
[10]	解明, 孙立强, 宋健斐, 魏耀东. 旋风分离器内气相旋转流动态特性分析与表征[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(7): 3455-3464.
[11]	尚丽, 刘双, 沈群, 张凌云, 孙楠楠, 魏伟. 典型二氧化碳利用技术的低碳成效综合评估[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(3): 1199-1208.
[12]	胥健萍, 王颖, 李春, 周晓宏. 微生物细胞工厂中代谢途径动态调控策略与网络构建[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(12): 6511-6521.
[13]	李宪秀, 何涛, 毛建卫, 沙如意. 减电荷聚甲基丙烯酸钠接枝介质的制备及蛋白质吸附性能[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(11): 6038-6044.
[14]	陈培珠, 陈国华, 门金坤. 化工园区应急响应阶段应急救援与疏散双向路径规划[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(1): 503-512.
[15]	于斌, 刘春晖, 郑广强, 曲广, 魏永泰, 王红星. 热集成变压精馏乙二醇脱水系统的控制方案优化[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(S2): 56-63.