化工园区应急响应阶段应急救援与疏散双向路径规划

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2021-0273

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

应急救援与应急疏散是化工园区应急响应过程中的两类关键性决策。在实际的应急响应中，因园区路网简单、通行能力较弱等问题很可能出现道路冲突或拥堵的情况，导致疏散失败或救援车辆无法撤离。为解决上述问题，本文提出了一种考虑智能避障的化工园区应急救援与应急疏散双向路径优化方法。构建了基于动态栅格的环境模型，针对园区内部应急响应与园区内外协同应急响应两个阶段，分别定义了不同应急响应阶段下园区内的应急救援agent、应急疏散agent、园区外进入园区的应急救援agent和园区内离开园区的应急救援agent四类agent的结构与移动规则。针对化工园区应急响应两个阶段的响应特性，提出两种智能避障模型用以避免道路冲突，建立考虑智能避障的化工园区应急响应两阶段应急救援与应急疏散双向路径规划模型。采用动态栅格法对化工园区栅格环境进行实时更新，应用Dijkstra算法对化工园区双向应急救援与应急疏散路径进行仿真优化。仿真实验结果表明，应用所提出的优化方法可分别得到化工园区应急响应两个阶段无冲突的最优双向路径，实现智能避障前提下的双向路径最短，具有较高可行性与实用价值。

关键词: 化工园区, 应急救援, 应急疏散, 双向路径规划, 智能避障

Abstract:

Emergency rescue (ER) and emergency evacuation (EE) are two key decisions in the emergency response of chemical industrial parks. In the actual emergency response, due to the simple road network and weak traffic capacity in chemical industrial park (CIP), a road conflict or congestion is likely to occur, leading to evacuation failure or inability of rescue vehicles to leave. To solve the above problems, a two-way route planning method was developed for emergency rescue and evacuation in CIP considering intelligent obstacle avoidance was proposed. A dynamic grid-based environment model was constructed. Aiming at the two stages of emergency response within CIP and the collaborative emergency response inside and outside CIP, the structures and movement rules of the ER agent belonging to CIP (ERB), the EE agent, the ER agent outside entering CIP (EROE) and the ERB agent leaving CIP (ERBL) under different emergency response stage were defined. According to the characteristics of the two stages of emergency response in CIP, two intelligent obstacle avoidance models were proposed to prevent potential road conflicts and congestions. On this basis, the two-way route planning for emergency rescue and evacuation models in two emergency response stages were established. The grid environment of CIP was updated in real time by dynamic grid method. Dijkstra's algorithm was used to simulate and verify the two-way route planning for emergency rescue and evacuation models in emergency response of CIP. The results illustrated that the proposed method was able to generate a set of optimum routes in the two stages of emergency response and overcomes possible road conflicts and congestions successfully.

Key words: chemical industrial park, emergency rescue, emergency evacuation, two-way route planning, intelligent obstacle avoidance

中图分类号:

TQ015.9

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.

CHEN Peizhu, CHEN Guohua, MEN Jinkun. Two-way route planning for emergency rescue and evacuation in emergency response stage of chemical industrial park[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2022, 41(1): 503-512.

图/表 12

图1 化工园区应急响应两阶段的多agent结构

图2 园区内部应急响应阶段的智能避障规则示意图

图3 园区内外协同应急响应阶段的智能避障规则示意图

表1 agent移动权值关系

连接的两端节点元素	移动方向	移动权值符号	移动权值
障碍物点至障碍物点	水平	α₁	∞
障碍物点至自由栅格	垂直	α₂	∞
障碍物点至自由栅格	对角线	α₃	∞
自由栅格至自由栅格	水平	α₄	1
自由栅格至自由栅格	垂直	α₅	1
自由栅格至自由栅格	对角线	α₆	1.414

表2 个体死亡概率方程[32]

事故类型	个体死亡概率方程Probit	剂量	备注
火灾	$Y P 1 = - 37.23 + 2.56 l n C P$	$C P = ? 1.33 t e x$	—
毒气泄漏	$Y P 2 = k 1 + k 2 l n C Y$	$C Y = C a D t e x$	—
爆炸	$Y P 3 = - 18.96 + 2.44 l n P s$		常压
爆炸	$Y P 4 = - 42.44 + 4.33 l n P s$		超压

表2 个体死亡概率方程[32]

事故类型	个体死亡概率方程Probit	剂量	备注
火灾	$Y P 1 = - 37.23 + 2.56 l n C P$	$C P = ? 1.33 t e x$	—
毒气泄漏	$Y P 2 = k 1 + k 2 l n C Y$	$C Y = C a D t e x$	—
爆炸	$Y P 3 = - 18.96 + 2.44 l n P s$		常压
爆炸	$Y P 4 = - 42.44 + 4.33 l n P s$		超压

表3 几种常见有毒气体毒负荷指数[32]

毒物名称	HSE指数	TNO指数	毒物名称	HSE指数	TNO指数
NH₃	2	2	H₂S	4	1.9
CO	1	1	SO₂	2	2.4
Cl₂	2	2.75	HF	1	1.5

图4 池火灾场景下的园区事故后果对路径的影响状态取值示意图

图5 化工园区应急响应两阶段双向路径求解流程

图6 某化工园区初始化栅格地图

图7 池火灾事故场景的化工园区路径网格事故影响状态图

图8 智能避障约束情况下园区内部应急响应阶段双向路径

图9 智能避障约束情况下园区内外协同应急响应阶段双向路径

参考文献 34

1	中国新闻网. 中海油惠州炼油厂失火村民撤离中致一死一伤[ER/OL]. [2021-02-04]. .
2	王珍. 风险放大与应急响应——基于天津港爆炸与古雷PX爆炸比较分析[D]. 南京: 南京大学, 2018.
	WANG Zhen. Risk amplification and emergency response: based on the comparison and analysis of Tianjin Harbor explosion and Gulei PX explosion[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University, 2018.
3	ZHOU Jianfeng, RENIERS Genserik. Probabilistic Petri-net addition enabling decision making depending on situational change: the case of emergency response to fuel tank farm fire[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 200: 106880.
4	ZHANG Xinmei, CHEN Guohua. The analysis of domino effect impact probability triggered by fragments[J]. Safety Science, 2009, 47(7): 1026-1032.
5	TZENG Gwo Hshiung, CHENG HsinJung, HUANG Tsung Dow. Multi-objective optimal planning for designing relief delivery systems[J]. Transportation Research E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2007, 43(6): 673-686.
6	SHEU Jiuh-Biing. Dynamic relief-demand management for emergency logistics operations under large-scale disasters[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2010, 46(1): 1-17.
7	段在鹏，钱新明，夏登友，等. 基于FCM和CBR-GRA双重检索的应急救援物质需求预测[J]. 东北大学学报（自然科学版）, 2016, 37(5): 756-760.
	DUAN Zaipeng, QIAN Xinming, XIA Dengyou, et al. Emergency resources demand forecast based on FCM and CBR-GRA dual search[J]. Journal of Northeastern University Natural Science, 2016, 37(5): 756-760.
8	王昕喆，杨洋洋，谢谚，等. 基于环境风险源分析的石化企业应急物资配备方法[J]. 化工进展, 2019, 38(S1): 270-274.
	WANG Xinzhe, YANG Yangyang, XIE Yan, et al. Petrochemical enterprise emergency materials allocation method based on environmental risk source analysis[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2019, 38(S1): 270-274.
9	HUANG Xiaoxia, SONG Liying. An emergency logistics distribution routing model for unexpected events[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2018, 269(1/2): 223-239.
10	WANG Zhiyong, SISI Zlatanova. Safe route determination for first responders in the presence of moving obstacles[J]. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2020, 21(3): 1044-1053.
11	LIU Bingsheng, SHEU Jiuh-Biing, ZHAO Xue, et al. Decision making on post-disaster rescue routing problems from the rescue efficiency perspective[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2020, 286(1): 321-335.
12	BARBAROSOĞLU G, ARDA Y. A two-stage stochastic programming framework for transportation planning in disaster response[J]. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2004, 55(1): 43-53.
13	韦金银, 郭琪, 史彬, 等. 考虑时变风险的成品油二次配送路径优化[J]. 化工进展, 2020, 39(4): 1597-1604.
	WEI Jinyin, GUO Qi, SHI Bin, et al. Route optimizing on secondary distribution of refined oil considering time-dependent risk[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(4): 1597-1604.
14	LI Jia, WANG Jinghong, JIN Bowei, et al. Evacuation of nursing home based on massmotion: effect of the distribution of dependent elderly[J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2020, 24(4):1330-1337.
15	MA Yaping, ZHANG Hui. Simulation study on cooperation behaviors and crowd dynamics in pedestrian evacuation[J]. Chinese Physics B, 2020, 29(3): 038901.
16	NA H S, BANERJEE A. Agent-based discrete-event simulation model for no-notice natural disaster evacuation planning[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2019, 129: 44-55.
17	ZENG Yiping, SONG Weiguo, HUO Feizhou, et al. Modeling evacuation dynamics on stairs by an extended optimal steps model[J]. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 2018, 84: 177-189.
18	HU Yanghui, ZHANG Jun, XIAO Hanyi, et al. Experimental study and analysis on behaviours and strategies of social groups and individuals[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 127: 104736.
19	HELBING D, JOHANSSON A, AL-ABIDEEN H Z. Dynamics of crowd disasters: an empirical study[J]. Physical Review E, 2007, 75(4): 046109.
20	LIU Xiaodong, SONG Weiguo, HUO Feizhou, et al. Experimental study of pedestrian flow in a fire-protection evacuation walk[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2014, 71: 343-349.
21	TAN Guanheng, HE Huan, SLOMAN Aaron. Ant colony system algorithm for real-time globally optimal path planning of mobile robots[J]. Acta Automatica Sinica, 2007, 33(3): 279-285.
22	慕楠, 宋卫国, 霍非舟. 基于优化方法的区域疏散路径规划研究[J]. 火灾科学, 2015, 24(3): 176-184.
	MU Nan, SONG Weiguo, HUO Feizhou. Study of area evacuation paths plan based on optimization methods[J]. Fire Safety Science, 2015, 24(3): 176-184.
23	AL-NABHAN N, AL-ABOODY N, ALIM AL ISLAM A B M. A hybrid IoT-based approach for emergency evacuation[J]. Computer Networks, 2019, 155(22): 87-97.
24	DHALL Aditya, DHASADE Akash, NALWADE Ashwin, et al. A survey on systematic approaches in managing forest fires[J]. Applied Geography, 2020, 121: 102266.
25	Jinkun MEN, JIANG Peng, XU Huan. A chance constrained programming approach for HazMat capacitated vehicle routing problem in type-2 fuzzy environment[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 237:117754.
26	HOU Jie, GAI Wenmei, CHENG Wuyi, et al. Hazardous chemical leakage accidents and emergency evacuation response from 2009 to 2018 in China: a review[J]. Safety Science, 2021,135:105101.
27	XU Ke, GAI Wenmei, SALHI Said. Dynamic emergency route planning for major chemical accidents: models and application[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 135: 105113.
28	CHEN Peizhu, CHEN Guohua, WANG Liangwang, et al. Optimizing emergency rescue and evacuation planning with intelligent obstacle avoidance in a chemical industrial park[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 56:119-127.
29	FANG Jieshi, Sherif EL-TAWIL, AGUIRRE Benigno. Leader-follower model for agent-based simulation of social collective behavior during egress[J]. Safety Science, 2016, 83: 40-47.
30	刘杰, 闫清东, 马越, 等. 基于蚁群几何优化算法的全局路径规划[J]. 东北大学学报（自然科学版）, 2015, 36(7): 923-928.
	LIU Jie, YAN Qingdong, MA Yue, et al. Global path planning based on improved ant colony optimization algorithm for geometry[J]. Journal of Northeastern University (Natural Science), 2015, 36(7): 923-928.
31	钟雨轩, 葛磊, 张鑫, 等. 无人水面艇岛礁海域完全遍历路径规划[J]. 上海大学学报（自然科学版）, 2017, 23(1): 17-26.
	ZHONG Yuxuan, GE Lei, ZHANG Xin, et al. Complete coverage path planning of USV used for mapping round island[J]. Journal of Shanghai University (Natural Science Edition), 2017, 23(1): 17-26.
32	BOSCH C J H VAN DEN, WETERINGS R A P M. Methods for the calculation of physical effects-due to release of hazardous materials (liquids and gases)-‘Yellow Book’[M]. 3rd ed. The Hague: Advisory Council on Dangerous Substances, 2005.
33	DNV. Phast8.21 Tutorial Manual[M]. Oslo: Det Norske Veritas, 2020.
34	Jinkun MEN, JIANG Peng, ZHENG Song, et al. A multi-objective emergency rescue facilities location model for catastrophic interlocking chemical accidents in Chemical Parks[J]. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2020, 21(11): 4749-4761.

[1]	张婷婷, 左旭乾, 田玲娣, 王世猛. 化工园区挥发性有机物排放清单及因子库构建方法[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 549-557.
[2]	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.
[3]	陈培珠, 陈国华, 周利兴, 门金坤. 化工园区多Agent协同应急智能决策体系[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(8): 4656-4665.
[4]	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.
[5]	杨挺. 中国化工园区建设管理的“六个一体化”[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(10): 5845-5853.
[6]	程玉龙, 罗云, 师立晨, 许铭. 化工园区Na-Tech风险定量评价方法[J]. 化工进展, 2019, 38(s1): 282-287.
[7]	黄孔星, 陈国华, 曾涛, 胡昆. 化工园区Na-Tech事件定量风险评价与防控体系评述[J]. 化工进展, 2019, 38(07): 3482-3494.
[8]	陈国华, 邹梦婷, 黄孔星, 杨运锋. 化工园区多灾种耦合脆弱性方法探究与前沿综述[J]. 化工进展, 2019, 38(05): 2527-2535.
[9]	陈国华, 邹梦婷. 化工园区多灾种耦合关系模型及断链减灾模式[J]. 化工进展, 2018, 37(08): 3271-3279.
[10]	夏晨曦, 韩辉. 某省域内企业应急救援能力实证研究及对策建议[J]. 化工进展, 2017, 36(S1): 521-524.
[11]	康德礼, 刘利民, 纪红兵. 化工园区智能化应急救援平台框架构建[J]. 化工进展, 2017, 36(04): 1544-1549.
[12]	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(04): 1534-1543.
[13]	纪红兵, 林名钦. 面向化工园区的知识产权建设研究[J]. 化工进展, 2016, 35(08): 2615-2621.
[14]	纪红兵, 康德礼, 刘利民, 曹智启. 化工园区循环经济发展的规划构建[J]. 化工进展, 2016, 35(07): 2279-2284.
[15]	李佳羽, 刘利民, 韩建华, 纪红兵. 典型化工园区VOCs排放控制技术的评价[J]. 化工进展, 2016, 35(04): 1250-1256.