乙烯装置碳二加氢和脱乙烷塔系统智能风险分析与预测

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2024-0305

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

安全评价是化工过程正常运行的前提，传统的定量风险评估方法虽然可以减少事故发生的频率，但严重依赖专家的经验，难以评估动态化学条件引起的潜在事故风险。针对这一问题，本文提出了一种基于动态模拟的智能定量风险评估方法（DQRA-BiLSTM）。首先，用流程模拟软件对所研究的过程进行模拟，得到异常条件下的动态数据集。然后，利用双向长短期记忆（Bi-LSTM）深度学习变量之间的潜在关系，表征对事故危害严重程度有直接影响的预测变量之间复杂的机制关系，提出了可靠的控制方案，保证了工艺的安全运行。将该方法应用于乙烯分离流程中的碳二加氢和脱乙烷系统。实验结果表明，该模型对乙烯分离流程的动态风险评估具有良好的性能，具有一定的实际应用价值。

关键词: 化学过程, 模拟, 动态定量风险评估, 安全, 风险预测

Abstract:

Safety evaluation is a prerequisite for the normal operation of chemical processes. Although the traditional quantitative risk assessment method can reduce the frequency of accidents, it relies heavily on the experience of experts and is difficult to assess the potential risk of accidents caused by dynamic chemical conditions. To address this problem, an intelligent quantitative risk assessment method based on dynamic simulation (DQRA-BiLSTM) was proposed in this paper. The process under study was first simulated with process simulation software to obtain a dynamic data set under abnormal conditions. Then, the potential relationships between variables were deeply learned using bi-directional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) to characterize the complex mechanistic relationships between predictor variables that had a direct impact on the severity of accident hazards. A reliable control scheme was proposed to ensure the safe operation of the process. The method was applied to the system of carbon di-hydrogenation and deethanization in the ethylene separation process, and the experimental results showed that the model had good performance for the dynamic risk assessment of the ethylene separation process, which had some practical application value.

Key words: chemical processes, simulation, dynamic quantitative risk assessment, safety, risk prediction

中图分类号:

TP18

李雪静, 崔哲, 刘彬, 李传坤, 田文德. 乙烯装置碳二加氢和脱乙烷塔系统智能风险分析与预测[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(2): 717-727.

LI Xuejing, CUI Zhe, LIU Bin, LI Chuankun, TIAN Wende. Intelligent risk analysis and prediction of carbon di-hydrogenation and deethanization tower systems[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2025, 44(2): 717-727.

图/表 21

参考文献 30

1	LIU Jixiang, ZHOU Xin, YANG Gengfei, et al. Conceptual carbon-reduction process design and quantitative sustainable assessment for concentrating high purity ethylene from wasted refinery gas[J]. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2023, 57: 290-308.
2	GONG Shixin. Multi-scale energy efficiency recognition and diagnosis scheme for ethylene production based on a hierarchical multi-indicator system[J]. Energy, 2023, 267: 126478.
3	XU Yuanyuan, RENIERS Genserik, 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.
4	ZHANG Huaqi, ZHANG Beike, GAO Dong. A new approach of integrating industry prior knowledge for HAZOP interaction[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2023, 82: 105005.
5	SADEGHI Reyhaneh, GOERLANDT Floris. Reasonableness of a proposed system theoretic process analysis (STPA) validation framework: An interview study[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2023, 83: 105064.
6	WANG Lipeng, YAN Fang, WANG Fang, et al. FMEA-CM based quantitative risk assessment for process industries—A case study of coal-to-methanol plant in China[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 149: 299-311.
7	BAROZZI Marco, CONTINI Sergio, RABONI Massimo, et al. Integration of recursive operability analysis, FMECA and FTA for the quantitative risk assessment in biogas plants: Role of procedural errors and components failures[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2021, 71: 104468.
8	AMENDOLA A. Accident sequence dynamic simulation versus event trees[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1988, 22(1/2/3/4): 3-25.
9	WANG Hangzhou, KHAN Faisal, AHMED Salim, et al. Dynamic quantitative operational risk assessment of chemical processes[J]. Chemical Engineering Science, 2016, 142: 62-78.
10	EMAMI Mona, HEJAZI Bijan, KARIMI Mehdi, et al. Quantitative risk assessment and risk reduction of integrated acid gas enrichment and amine regeneration process using Aspen Plus dynamic simulation[J]. Results in Engineering, 2022, 15: 100566.
11	LIU Zengkai, MA Qiang, SHI Xuewei, et al. A dynamic quantitative risk assessment method for drilling well control by integrating multi types of risk factors[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2022, 167: 162-172.
12	SHI Yuntao, ZHAO Lei, ZHOU Meng, et al. A dynamic community gas risk-prediction method based on temporal knowledge graphs[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2023, 177: 436-445.
13	ADEDIGBA Sunday A, KHAN Faisal, YANG Ming. An integrated approach for dynamic economic risk assessment of process systems[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2018, 116: 312-323.
14	YU Hongyang. Dynamic risk assessment of complex process operations based on a novel synthesis of soft-sensing and loss function[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2017, 105: 1-11.
15	CHAU Kevin, DJIRE Abdoulaye, VADDIRAJU Sreeram, et al. Process Risk Index (PRI)-A methodology to analyze the design and operational hazards in the processing facility[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2022, 165: 623-632.
16	ZEBERT Tristan Lee, LOKHAT David, KURELLA Swamy, et al. Modeling and simulation of ethane cracker reactor using Aspen Plus[J]. South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2023, 43: 204-214.
17	MALIK Huzaifa, KHAN Huma Warsi, HASSAN SHAH Mansoor Ul, et al. Screening of ionic liquids as green entrainers for ethanol water separation by extractive distillation: COSMO-RS prediction and Aspen Plus simulation[J]. Chemosphere, 2023, 311: 136901.
18	MUBASHIR Muhammad, AHSAN Muhammad, AHMAD Iftikhar, et al. Process modeling and simulation of ethylene oxide production by implementing pinch and cost analysis[J]. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 2022, 13(3): 101585.
19	Mikael YAMANEE-NOLIN, ANDERSSON Niklas, NILSSON Bernt, et al. Trajectory optimization of an oscillating industrial two-stage evaporator utilizing a Python-Aspen Plus Dynamics toolchain[J]. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2020, 155: 12-17.
20	ZADAKBAR O, IMTIAZ S, KHAN F. Dynamic risk assessment and fault detection using a multivariate technique[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2013, 32(4): 365-375.
21	ZADAKBAR Omid, KHAN Faisal, IMTIAZ Syed. Development of economic consequence methodology for process risk analysis[J]. Risk Analysis, 2015, 35(4): 713-731.
22	ZADAKBAR O, IMTIAZ S, KHAN F. Dynamic risk assessment and fault detection using principal component analysis[J]. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2013, 52(2): 809-816.
23	SPIRING Fred A. The reflected normal loss function[J]. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 1993, 21(3): 321-330.
24	BANGI Mohammed Saad Faizan, KWON Joseph Sang-Il. Deep hybrid modeling of chemical process: Application to hydraulic fracturing[J]. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2020, 134: 106696.
25	BHADRIRAJU Bhavana, KWON Joseph Sang-Il, KHAN Faisal. Risk-based fault prediction of chemical processes using operable adaptive sparse identification of systems (OASIS)[J]. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2021, 152: 107378.
26	RANAWAT Nagendra Singh, PRAKASH Jatin, MIGLANI Ankur, et al. Performance evaluation of LSTM and Bi-LSTM using non-convolutional features for blockage detection in centrifugal pump[J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023, 122: 106092.
27	HU Xinmei, YUAN Shasha, XU Fangzhou, et al. Scalp EEG classification using deep Bi-LSTM network for seizure detection[J]. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 2020, 124: 103919.
28	SUN Weifeng, LI Weihua, ZHANG Dezhi, et al. Lost circulation monitoring using bi-directional LSTM and data augmentation[J]. Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 2023, 225: 211660.
29	WANG Shaochen, TIAN Wende, LI Chuankun, et al. Mechanism-based deep learning for tray efficiency soft-sensing in distillation process[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2023, 231: 109012.
30	LI Zongxiang, YANG Yan, LI Liwei, et al. A weighted Pearson correlation coefficient based multi-fault comprehensive diagnosis for battery circuits[J]. Journal of Energy Storage, 2023, 60: 106584.

编辑推荐 0

Metrics

阅读次数

全文

HTML			PDF

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版	最新录用	在线预览	正式出版
0	0	0	0	0	18

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	15	3
比例	83%	17%

摘要

最新录用	在线预览	正式出版

0	0	46

来源	本网站	其他网站

次数	13	33
比例	28%	72%

设备编号	设备名称	设备编号	设备名称
T-101	脱甲烷塔	T-107	甲烷汽提塔
T-102	脱乙烷塔	T-108	丙烯精馏塔
T-103	绿油吸收塔	T-109	C₃再精馏塔
T-104	乙烯精馏塔	R1	碳二加氢反应器
T-105	脱丙烷塔	R2	丙二烯转化器
T-106	脱丁烷塔	F1	闪蒸器

设备编号	设备名称	设备编号	设备名称
T-101	脱甲烷塔	T-107	甲烷汽提塔
T-102	脱乙烷塔	T-108	丙烯精馏塔
T-103	绿油吸收塔	T-109	C₃再精馏塔
T-104	乙烯精馏塔	R1	碳二加氢反应器
T-105	脱丙烷塔	R2	丙二烯转化器
T-106	脱丁烷塔	F1	闪蒸器

流股	温度T/℃	压力P/bar	流量F/kmol·h^-1
精馏塔401进料	-75.80	0.73	1331.98
精馏塔401塔顶出料	-245.98	0.61	779.94
精馏塔401塔底出料	-53.36	0.66	2277.42
换热器进料	-51.20	2.57	684.43
换热器出料	10.99	2.52	684.43
精馏塔402进料	9.32	2.40	684.43
精馏塔402进料	-4.37	2.39	1592.97
精馏塔402塔顶出料1	1.28	2.39	1962.87
精馏塔402塔底出料2	88.49	2.42	471.36
反应器进料	104.86	2.66	2005.49
反应器出料	146.64	2.28	1964.77
精馏塔403进料1	-21.33	2.04	131.51
精馏塔403进料2	-5.56	2.05	1964.77
精馏塔403塔顶出料	-8.75	2.09	1933.81
精馏塔404进料	-9.78	1.99	1933.82
精馏塔404塔顶出料	-32.66	1.83	411.29
精馏塔404塔底出料	-19.52	2.01	1258.31
精馏塔404侧线采出	-30.24	1.94	132.67

流股	温度T/℃	压力P/bar	流量F/kmol·h^-1
精馏塔401进料	-75.80	0.73	1331.98
精馏塔401塔顶出料	-245.98	0.61	779.94
精馏塔401塔底出料	-53.36	0.66	2277.42
换热器进料	-51.20	2.57	684.43
换热器出料	10.99	2.52	684.43
精馏塔402进料	9.32	2.40	684.43
精馏塔402进料	-4.37	2.39	1592.97
精馏塔402塔顶出料1	1.28	2.39	1962.87
精馏塔402塔底出料2	88.49	2.42	471.36
反应器进料	104.86	2.66	2005.49
反应器出料	146.64	2.28	1964.77
精馏塔403进料1	-21.33	2.04	131.51
精馏塔403进料2	-5.56	2.05	1964.77
精馏塔403塔顶出料	-8.75	2.09	1933.81
精馏塔404进料	-9.78	1.99	1933.82
精馏塔404塔顶出料	-32.66	1.83	411.29
精馏塔404塔底出料	-19.52	2.01	1258.31
精馏塔404侧线采出	-30.24	1.94	132.67

设备名称	温度/℃	压力/bar	流量/kmol·h^-1
换热器B-1	103	22.40	2011.8
反应器R-1	148	22.85	2011.8