城市燃气管网风险评估方法研究
|
摘要
近年来,随着城市经济和建设发展水平的不断提高,城市燃气工业快速发展,燃气管网的使用日趋普及。与此同时,城市燃气管网安全性能的问题也逐渐得到人们的关注。本文以城市燃气管网的风险为研究对象,从定性和定量两个角度研究对燃气管网进行风险评估的方法。?
定性风险评估的思路为根据燃气管网事故的历史数据和燃气管网周边设施、环境数据,建立城市燃气管网风险评估指标体系,通过指标体系评估城市燃气管网的风险。本文所建立的指标体系由管网脆弱性指标、事故诱因指标、事故后果指标以及各指标的权重共同组成,综合描述燃气管网事故发生的可能性和后果严重程度。其中,指标的选择来源于实际的城市燃气管网事故特点及历史数据分析;权重的计算主要是根据可靠性工程算法理论和灰色关联理论。
定量风险评估的思路为根据不同燃气事故的物理模型和物理规律,分析并提出一种可用于城市燃气管网定量风险评估的一般性思路,这一新思路可分为事故可能性分析、后果分析和风险评估三个环节,包含了不同类型事故后果的物理模型与分析。其中,事故后果分析包括管网外部风险和管网内部风险两部分,管网外部风险评估主要研究燃气事故后果所造成的致死概率在空间内的分布,进而计算在个人风险和社会风险在空间内的分布;管网内部风险评估主要研究事故风险在管网内传播的机制及管网相继失效的模型。
为验证两种风险评估方法的可行性和实用性,本文采用了两个实际的城市燃气管网进行风险评估。通过地理信息系统绘图对比两个实例的分析结果,可以发现两种风险评估方法的评估结果具有良好的相似性和实用性,均能够运用于实际的城市燃气管网风险评估。而在实际的应用过程中,方法的选择取决于评估对象的基础数据详尽程度以及风险评估所需的计算精度要求。
本文提出的风险评估方法可以对城市燃气管网进行综合风险评估,为城市燃气管网安全管理提供数据支持,为建立预测预警系统和防灾减灾机制提供依据。
Recently natural gas industry is developing rapidly, and its accidents are threatening the urban safety. Risk management through quantitative assessment has become an important way to improve the safety performance of the natural gas supply system. This paper focuses on the risk of urban natural gas pipelines, and assesses risk by qualitative analysis and quantitative evaluation.
In this paper, a qualitative as well as an integrated quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network are proposed. The qualitative method is an improvement to the Kent Grading method which is manly used for the long-distance pipeline, and has three primary indexes as inherent risk index, causation index and consequence index. The causation index displays the factors induce the natural gas pipelines accidents, the inherent risk index displays the vulnerability of natural gas pipelines, and the consequence index displays the consequence of natural gas pipelines accidents. The selection of indexes is according to the character of gas pipeline accidents, and the distribution of weights is based on the Reliability Engineering Theory and the Grey Correlation Theory.
The integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network proposed is composed of the probability assessment of accidents, the analysis of consequences and the evaluation of risk. This new method consists of different accident effect analysis and physics model analysis, including release rate calculation, physics effects calculation, death probability calculation, risk calculation, etc. The models that are possibly needed in urban gas transmission pipelines risk are investigated.It is noteworthy that the consequences analyzed here include those of the outside and inside gas pipelines. The analysis of consequences of the outside pipelines focuses on the individual risk and societal risk caused by different accidents, while that of the inside pipelines concerns about the risk of the economic loss because of the pressure re-distribution.
To demonstrate the presented methods, a small sample urban natural gas pipeline network including 95 pipelines and a large sample urban natural gas pipeline network including 5421 pipelines are used for risk assessment. The results show that both of two presented risk assessment methods for natural gas pipeline network can be used in practical application, and the choice of methods depends on the actual basic data of the gas pipelines and the requirement of assessment accuracy.
定性风险评估的思路为根据燃气管网事故的历史数据和燃气管网周边设施、环境数据,建立城市燃气管网风险评估指标体系,通过指标体系评估城市燃气管网的风险。本文所建立的指标体系由管网脆弱性指标、事故诱因指标、事故后果指标以及各指标的权重共同组成,综合描述燃气管网事故发生的可能性和后果严重程度。其中,指标的选择来源于实际的城市燃气管网事故特点及历史数据分析;权重的计算主要是根据可靠性工程算法理论和灰色关联理论。
定量风险评估的思路为根据不同燃气事故的物理模型和物理规律,分析并提出一种可用于城市燃气管网定量风险评估的一般性思路,这一新思路可分为事故可能性分析、后果分析和风险评估三个环节,包含了不同类型事故后果的物理模型与分析。其中,事故后果分析包括管网外部风险和管网内部风险两部分,管网外部风险评估主要研究燃气事故后果所造成的致死概率在空间内的分布,进而计算在个人风险和社会风险在空间内的分布;管网内部风险评估主要研究事故风险在管网内传播的机制及管网相继失效的模型。
为验证两种风险评估方法的可行性和实用性,本文采用了两个实际的城市燃气管网进行风险评估。通过地理信息系统绘图对比两个实例的分析结果,可以发现两种风险评估方法的评估结果具有良好的相似性和实用性,均能够运用于实际的城市燃气管网风险评估。而在实际的应用过程中,方法的选择取决于评估对象的基础数据详尽程度以及风险评估所需的计算精度要求。
本文提出的风险评估方法可以对城市燃气管网进行综合风险评估,为城市燃气管网安全管理提供数据支持,为建立预测预警系统和防灾减灾机制提供依据。
Recently natural gas industry is developing rapidly, and its accidents are threatening the urban safety. Risk management through quantitative assessment has become an important way to improve the safety performance of the natural gas supply system. This paper focuses on the risk of urban natural gas pipelines, and assesses risk by qualitative analysis and quantitative evaluation.
In this paper, a qualitative as well as an integrated quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network are proposed. The qualitative method is an improvement to the Kent Grading method which is manly used for the long-distance pipeline, and has three primary indexes as inherent risk index, causation index and consequence index. The causation index displays the factors induce the natural gas pipelines accidents, the inherent risk index displays the vulnerability of natural gas pipelines, and the consequence index displays the consequence of natural gas pipelines accidents. The selection of indexes is according to the character of gas pipeline accidents, and the distribution of weights is based on the Reliability Engineering Theory and the Grey Correlation Theory.
The integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network proposed is composed of the probability assessment of accidents, the analysis of consequences and the evaluation of risk. This new method consists of different accident effect analysis and physics model analysis, including release rate calculation, physics effects calculation, death probability calculation, risk calculation, etc. The models that are possibly needed in urban gas transmission pipelines risk are investigated.It is noteworthy that the consequences analyzed here include those of the outside and inside gas pipelines. The analysis of consequences of the outside pipelines focuses on the individual risk and societal risk caused by different accidents, while that of the inside pipelines concerns about the risk of the economic loss because of the pressure re-distribution.
To demonstrate the presented methods, a small sample urban natural gas pipeline network including 95 pipelines and a large sample urban natural gas pipeline network including 5421 pipelines are used for risk assessment. The results show that both of two presented risk assessment methods for natural gas pipeline network can be used in practical application, and the choice of methods depends on the actual basic data of the gas pipelines and the requirement of assessment accuracy.
引文
[1] Montiel H, Vilchez JA, Amaldos J. Historical analysis of accidents in the transportation of natural gas. J. Hazardous Materials. 1996, 51:77~92
[2]于京春,解东来,马冬莲等.城镇燃气管网风险评估研究进展及建议.煤气与热力,2007,27(12):38~42
[3] European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. 7th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. 2008
[4]中华人民共和国石油与天然气行业标准.SY 5225-1994.石油与天然气钻井、开发、储运防火防爆安全生产管理规定.1994
[5]国家统计局.中国城市统计年鉴2007.北京:中国统计出版社,2007
[6]中国火灾统计年鉴[M].公安部消防局.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,1996 - 2005
[7] http://www.in-en.com/gas/html/gas-1349134922140079.html
[8]李连素,刘淑蓉.天然气事故的预防及紧急处置.天然气工业,1996,16(6):75~77
[9]金磊、徐德蜀、罗云.中国21世纪安全减灾战略.河南:河南大学出版社,2000:220~235
[10]苟三权.油田开发项目的风险分析方法综述.石油钻探技术,2007,35(2):87~90
[11]杨印臣,陈秋雄.城市燃气管道风险评估现状及改进.天然气与石油,2006,24(4):32~35
[12]赵保才.风险评价在油气管道技术研究中的应用.中国工程咨询,2003(2):43~47
[13] Jonkman S N, van Gelder P H A J M, Vrijling J K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J. Hazardous Materials, 2003, 99:1~30
[14] Vrouwenvelder A C W M, Lovegrove R, Holicky M. Risk assessment and risk communication in civil engineering. Safety, Risk and Reliability—Trends in Engineering, Malta, 2001:1~6
[15]虞晓芬,傅玳.多指标综合评价方法综述.统计与决策,2004,179:119~121
[16] Cagno E, Caron F, Mancini M, et al. Using AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline failures in a robust Bayesian approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2000, 67:275~284
[17] Hawdon David. Efficiency, performance and regulation of the international gas industry—a bootstrap DEA approach. Energy Policy. 2003, 31:1167~1178.
[18] Markowski A S, Mannan M S. Fuzzy logic for piping risk assessment. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2009, 22:921~927
[19] Bonvicini S, Leonelli P, Spadoni G. Risk analysis of hazardous materials transportation: evaluating uncertainty by means of fuzzy logic. J. Hazardous Materials. 1998, 62:59~74.
[20]强鲁,周伟国,潘新新.基于故障树方法的输配管网燃气泄漏风险决策.上海煤气,2007,1:1~4
[21]何淑静,周伟国,严铭卿,等.燃气输配管网可靠性的故障树分析.煤气与热力,2003,23(8):459~461
[22]廖柯熹,姚安林,张淮鑫.天然气管线失效故障树分析.天然气工业.2001,21 (2):94~96
[23]孙安娜,安跃红,段常贵,等.地下燃气管道第三方影响事故树模型.煤气与热力,2005,25(1):1~5
[24]黄小美,彭世尼,李百战,等.城市燃气管道系统失效的事件树和故障树相结合.重庆建筑大学学报,2006,28(6):99~101
[25]华小洋,胡宗武,范祖尧.模糊故障树分析方法.机械强度,1998,20(1):35~40
[26] Dey P K. An integrated assessment model for cross-country pipelines. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2002, 22:703~721
[27]王蕾,李帆.城市燃气输配管网的可靠性评价.煤气与热力,2005,25(4):5~8
[28]唐子烨,马宪国.城市天然气供应系统的可靠性分析模型研究.广西大学学报(自然科学版),2003,28(3):241~245
[29]黄清武.城镇燃气管网系统可靠性与风险研究:[硕士学位论文].福建:福州大学,2003
[30] Deng J L. Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters. 1982, 1:288~294
[31]姜波.灰色系统与神经网络分析方法及其应用研究:[博士学位论文].武汉:华中科技大学,2004
[32] Deng J L. Introduction to the grey system theory. J. Grey Syst. 1989, 1:1~24
[33] H. S. Gau, C. Y. Hsieh, C. W. Liu, Application of grey correlation method to evaluate potential groundwater recharge sites. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2006, 20:407~421
[34]罗党.灰色决策问题的分析方法研究:[博士学位论文].南京:南京航空航天大学,2004
[35]田娜.灰色关联分析法在油气管道半定量风险评价中的应用.石油工程建设,2006,34(1):17~21
[36] Muhlbauer W K. Pipeline Risk Management Manual. Gulf Publishing Company, 1992
[37]万礼锋,尹贻林,张丽君,等.城市燃气管网安全分析体系.煤气与热力,2007,27(11):50~53
[38] Jo Y D, Crowl D A. Individual risk analysis of high-pressure natural gas pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2008, 21:589~595
[39] Arnaldos J, Casal J, Montiel H. Design of a computer tool for the evaluation of the consequences of accidental natural gas releases in distribution pipes. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1998,11:135~148
[40] Metropolo P L, Brown A E P. Natural Gas Pipeline Accident Consequence Analysis. 3rd International Conference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis & Hazard Mitigation. Sintra, Portugal, 2004:307~310
[41] Jo Y D, Ahn B J. A method of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2005, 123:1~12
[42] Sklavounos Spyros, Rigas Fotis. Estimation of safety distances in the vicinity of fuel gas pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2006,19:24~31
[43]刘斐,刘茂.城市燃气管线的定量风险分析.南开大学学报(自然科学版),2006,39(6):31~36
[44]崔辉,徐志胜,宋文华.人工燃气爆炸与中毒事故危害定量比较分析.灾害学,2008,23(4):96~100
[45]徐亚博,钱新明,刘振翼.天然气输送管道泄漏事故危害定量分析.中国安全科学学报,2008,18(1):147~149
[46] Krueger Joel, Smith Duncan. A practical approach to fire hazard analysis for offshore structures. J. Hazardous Materials. 2003, 104:107~122
[47] Suardina J A, McPhate A J. Fire and explosion assessment on oil and gas floating production storage offloading (FPSO): An effective screening and comparison tool. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2009, 87:147~160
[48]黄超,翁文国,吴健宏.城市燃气管网的故障传播模型.清华大学学报(自然科学版),2008,48 (8):1283~1286
[49]魏其涛,杨用君.城市燃气管网风险评价指标体系研究.中国科技信息,2007,6:198~200
[50]潘新新,周伟国.城市天然气高压输配管网风险评价.天然气工业,2007,27(8):100~102
[51]汪定怡,吕学珍.城市燃气输配管道风险评价指数体系的建立.城市燃气,2005,19(6):36~39
[52]储小燕,沈士明.南京市天然气利用工程管道的风险评价.油气储运,2005,24(3):13~16
[53]高俊波,郭越,王晓峰.城市燃气管网的定量风险分析模型研究.应用基础与工程科学学报,2008,16(2): 280~286
[54]王康林,曹明明,王伯铎.Muhlbauer风险分析法在管道风险评价中的应用.环境科学研究,2006,19(2):112~114
[55]潘家华.油气管道的风险分析.油气储运,1995,14(3):11~15
[56]何淑静,周伟国,严铭卿,等.城市燃气输配系统事故统计分析与对策.煤气与热力,2003,23(12):753~755
[57]王剑友.燃气输配系统事故统计分析及对策.煤气与热力,2001,21(2):178~179
[58]刘宝荣,朱喜成,杜宇峰,等.燃气系统漏损事故原因的定性定量分析.煤气与热力,2007,27(5):48~50
[59]王玉梅,郭书平.国外天然气管道事故分析.油气储运,2000,19(7):5~10
[60]王凯全,王宁,张弛,等.城市天然气管道风险特征与肯特法的改进.中国安全科学学报,2008,18(9):152~157
[61]曾静,陈国华.城市埋地燃气管道风险评估方法的适用性.煤气与热力,2007,27 (5):2~4
[62]余建星,黄振广,李建辉,孙大军.输油管道风险评估方法中风险分析因素权重调整研究.中国海上油气工程,2001,13(5):41~44
[63] Schlechter W P G. Facility risk review as a means to addressing existing risks during the life cycle of a process unit, operating or facility. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. 1996, 66:387~402.
[64] Dong Yuhua, Yu Datao. Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2005, 18:83~88
[65] Cooke Roger, Jager Eric. A Probabilistic Model for the Failure Frequency of Underground Gas Pipelines. Risk Analysis. 1998, 18:511~527
[66] Fu C, Yin Y L. Fault tree analysis for assessing Tianjin urban gas pipeline's fault. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. Tianjin, Peoples R China. 2007:358~362
[67]何淑静,周伟国,严铭卿.上海城市燃气输配管网失效模糊故障树分析法.同济大学学报,2005,33(4):507~511
[68] Jo Y D, Ahn B J. Analysis of hazard areas associated with high-pressure natural-gas pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2002, 15:179~188
[69]韩朱旸,翁文国.燃气管网定量风险分析方法综述.中国安全科学学报,2009,19(7):154~164
[70]周波,张国枢.有害物质泄漏扩散的数值模拟.工业安全与环保,2005,31(10):42~44
[71]霍春勇,董玉华,余大涛等.长输管线气体泄漏率的计算方法研究.石油学报,2004,25(1):101~105
[72]颜力,李长俊,廖柯熹.输气管道泄漏影响的危害性分析.内蒙古石油化工,2005(9):28~30
[73]赖建波,杨昭.高压燃气管道破裂的定量风险分析.天津大学学报,2007,40(5):589~593
[74]董玉华,周敬恩,高惠临等.长输管道稳态气体泄漏率的计算.油气储运,2002,21(8):11~15
[75]田贯三.管道燃气泄漏过程动态模拟的研究.山东建筑工程学院学报,1999,14(4):56~60
[76] Montiel Helena, V?lchez J A, Casal Joaquim. Mathematical modelling of accidental gas releases. J. Hazardous Materials. 1998, 59:211~233
[77]于畅,田贯三.城市燃气泄漏强度计算模型的探讨.山东建筑大学学报,2007,22(6):541~545
[78]唐保金,张增刚,汤云普等.燃气管道泄漏量计算方法.山东土木建筑学会燃气专业委员会2008年年会论文集,2008:37~42
[79]杨昭,张甫仁,赖建波.非等温长输管线稳态泄漏计算模型.天津大学学报,2005,38(12):1115~1121
[80]王大庆,霍春勇,高惠临.长输管线气体泄漏率简化计算方法.天然气工业,2008,28(1):116~118
[81]于明,狄彦,帅健.输气管道泄漏率计算与扩散模拟方法述评.管道技术与设备,2007(4):15~18
[82] Jo Y D, Ahn B J. A simple model for the release rate of hazardous gas from a hole on high-pressure pipelines. J. Hazardous Materials. 2003, A97:31~46
[83] Luo J H, Zheng M, Zhao X W, Huo C Y, et al. Simplified expression for estimating release rate of hazardous gas from a hole on high-pressure pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2006, 19:362~366
[84]向素平,冯良,周义超.天然气管道泄漏模型.天然气工业,2007,27(7):100~102
[85]刘中良,罗志云,王皆腾,等.天然气管道泄漏速率的确定.化工学报,2008,59(8):2121~2126
[86]潘旭海,蒋军成.危险性物质泄漏事故扩散过程模拟分析.中国职业安全卫生管理体系认证,2001(3):44~46
[87] American Petroleum Institute, Risk based resource document, API PR581, 2000
[88]李又绿,姚安林,李永杰.天然气管道泄漏扩散模型研究.天然气工业,2004,24(8): 201~203
[89]王文娟,刘剑锋.危险性气体泄漏扩散数学模拟研究.工业安全与环保,2006,32(11):23~25
[90]孙永庆,钟群鹏,张峥.城市燃气管道风险评估中失效后果的计算.天然气工业,2006,26(1):120~122
[91]邓新民.点源大气扩散模式计算的参数选取.成都气象学院学报,1999,14(2):139~146
[92]黄小美.城市燃气管道系统风险评价研究:[硕士学位论文].重庆:重庆大学,2004
[93]环境影响评价技术导则大气环境.HJ/T2.2-1993,1993
[94]潘旭海,蒋军成.化学危险性气体泄漏扩散模拟及其影响因素.南京化工大学学报,2001,23(1):19~22
[95]丁信伟,王淑兰,徐国庆.可燃及毒性气体泄漏扩散研究综述.化学工业与工程,1999,16(2):118~122
[96]杨昭,赖建波,韩金丽.天然气管道气体泄漏扩散过程研究.天然气工业,2007,27(7):97~99
[97]王英伟,孙雪.有风条件下点源高斯模式的参数敏感性分析.环境科学与管理,2008,33(10):178~180
[98]肖建明,陈国华,张瑞华.高斯烟羽模型扩散面积的算法研究.计算机与应用化学,2006,23(6):559~564
[99] Mazzoldi Alberto, Hill Tim, Colls J J. CFD and Gaussian atmospheric dispersion models: A comparison for leak from carbon dioxide transportation and storage facilities. Atmospheric Environment. 2008, 42:8046~8054
[100] Yang Zhao, Li Xihong, Lai Jianbo. Analysis on the diffusion hazards of dynamic leakage of gas pipeline. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2007, 92:47~53
[101]李伟,张奇.高压气体泄漏喷射和扩散的数值模拟.中国职业健康安全协会2008年学术年会论文集,2008:315~320
[102]中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB 17820-1999.国家天然气标准.北京:中国标准出版社,1999
[103] Technica. Techniques for Assessing Industrial Hazards. World Bank Technical Paper Number 55, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.1998
[104]王曰燕,罗金恒,赵新伟等.天然气输送管道火灾事故危险分析.天然气与石油,2005,23 (3):52~63
[105] API RP 521. Recommended Practice 521, third ed., API, Washington, DC, November, 1990
[106]刘俊娥,贾增科,李晓慧.城市燃气管道喷射火事故后果分析.河北工程大学学报(自然科学版),2007,24(4):53~56
[107]秦政先.天然气管道泄漏扩散及爆炸数值模拟研究:[硕士学位论文].四川南充:西南石油大学,2007
[108]毕明树.开敞空间可燃气云爆炸压力研究:[博士学位论文].大连:大连理工大学,2001
[109]孙博.开敞空间可燃气云爆炸研究:[硕士学位论文].大连:大连理工大学,2000
[110]金果.可燃性气云爆炸研究:[硕士学位论文].大连:大连理工大学,2000
[111]梁瑞,张春燕,姜峰等.天然气管道泄漏爆炸后果评价模型对比分析.中国安全科学学报,2007,17(8):131~135
[112] Centre for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineering, Guidelines for Evaluation the Characteristics of Vapour Cloud Explosion, Flash Fires, and BLEVE. New York, 1994
[113]田贯三,李兴泉.城镇燃气爆炸极限影响因素与计算误差的分析.中国安全科学学报,2002,12(6):48~51
[114]范喜生.管道内可燃物爆炸问题现状与研究方向.工业安全与防尘,1998,6:10~14
[115]胡栋,龙属川,吴传谦,等.可爆性气体爆炸极限和爆燃转变成爆轰的研究.爆炸与冲击,1989,9(3):266~275
[116]牛坤.开敞空间可燃气体扩散规律与爆燃现象的研究:[硕士学位论文].天津:河北工业大学:2007
[117] CPQRA, Guideline for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, ISBN 0-8169-0402-2, The Center for Chemical Process Safety of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1988
[118] Rausch A H, Eisenberg N A, Lynch C J. Continuing Development of the Vulnerability Model (VM2). Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC, Report No. CG-53-77, February, 1977
[119] IGE. Steel pipeline for high pressure gas transmission. IGE Code TD/1, fourth ed., Communication, vol. 1670, 2001
[120] Fernando D′?az Alonso, Enrique Gonz′alez Ferrada′s, Juan Francisco S′anchez P′erez. Characteristic overpressure–impulse–distance curves for vapour cloud explosions using the TNO Multi-Energy model. J. Hazardous Materials. 2006, A137:734~741
[121] Enrique Gonza′lez Ferrada′s, Fernando D?′az Alonso, Marta Doval Min?arro. Consequence analysis by means of characteristic curves to determine the damage to buildings from bursting spherical vessels. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2008, 86:175~181
[122] Fernando D?′az Alonso, Enrique Gonza′lez Ferrada′s, Marta Doval Min?arro. Consequence analysis by means of characteristic curves to determine the damage to buildings from the detonation of explosive substances as a function of TNT equivalence. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2008, 21:74~81
[123] Fernando D′?az Alonso, Enrique Gonza′lez Ferrada′s, Juan Francisco Sa′nchez Pe′rez. Consequence analysis to determine damage to buildings from vapour cloud explosions using characteristic curves. J. Hazardous Materials. 2008, 159:264~270
[124] TNO Purple Book. Guideline for Quantitative Risk Assessment. Committee for the Prevention of Disasters. The Netherlands, 1999 (Chapter 6)
[125] Han Z Y, Weng WG. An integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network, J. Prevention in the Process Industries. 2010, 23:428~436
[126]袁长丰.基于GIS人口统计信息分析研究:[硕士学位论文].青岛:山东科技大学,2005
[127]昆明市统计局.2001年昆明统计年鉴.北京:中国统计出版社,2001
[128] Re′ka Albert, Hawoong Jeong, Albert-La′szlo′Baraba′si. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature. 2000, 406:378~381
[2]于京春,解东来,马冬莲等.城镇燃气管网风险评估研究进展及建议.煤气与热力,2007,27(12):38~42
[3] European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. 7th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group. 2008
[4]中华人民共和国石油与天然气行业标准.SY 5225-1994.石油与天然气钻井、开发、储运防火防爆安全生产管理规定.1994
[5]国家统计局.中国城市统计年鉴2007.北京:中国统计出版社,2007
[6]中国火灾统计年鉴[M].公安部消防局.北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,1996 - 2005
[7] http://www.in-en.com/gas/html/gas-1349134922140079.html
[8]李连素,刘淑蓉.天然气事故的预防及紧急处置.天然气工业,1996,16(6):75~77
[9]金磊、徐德蜀、罗云.中国21世纪安全减灾战略.河南:河南大学出版社,2000:220~235
[10]苟三权.油田开发项目的风险分析方法综述.石油钻探技术,2007,35(2):87~90
[11]杨印臣,陈秋雄.城市燃气管道风险评估现状及改进.天然气与石油,2006,24(4):32~35
[12]赵保才.风险评价在油气管道技术研究中的应用.中国工程咨询,2003(2):43~47
[13] Jonkman S N, van Gelder P H A J M, Vrijling J K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J. Hazardous Materials, 2003, 99:1~30
[14] Vrouwenvelder A C W M, Lovegrove R, Holicky M. Risk assessment and risk communication in civil engineering. Safety, Risk and Reliability—Trends in Engineering, Malta, 2001:1~6
[15]虞晓芬,傅玳.多指标综合评价方法综述.统计与决策,2004,179:119~121
[16] Cagno E, Caron F, Mancini M, et al. Using AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline failures in a robust Bayesian approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2000, 67:275~284
[17] Hawdon David. Efficiency, performance and regulation of the international gas industry—a bootstrap DEA approach. Energy Policy. 2003, 31:1167~1178.
[18] Markowski A S, Mannan M S. Fuzzy logic for piping risk assessment. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2009, 22:921~927
[19] Bonvicini S, Leonelli P, Spadoni G. Risk analysis of hazardous materials transportation: evaluating uncertainty by means of fuzzy logic. J. Hazardous Materials. 1998, 62:59~74.
[20]强鲁,周伟国,潘新新.基于故障树方法的输配管网燃气泄漏风险决策.上海煤气,2007,1:1~4
[21]何淑静,周伟国,严铭卿,等.燃气输配管网可靠性的故障树分析.煤气与热力,2003,23(8):459~461
[22]廖柯熹,姚安林,张淮鑫.天然气管线失效故障树分析.天然气工业.2001,21 (2):94~96
[23]孙安娜,安跃红,段常贵,等.地下燃气管道第三方影响事故树模型.煤气与热力,2005,25(1):1~5
[24]黄小美,彭世尼,李百战,等.城市燃气管道系统失效的事件树和故障树相结合.重庆建筑大学学报,2006,28(6):99~101
[25]华小洋,胡宗武,范祖尧.模糊故障树分析方法.机械强度,1998,20(1):35~40
[26] Dey P K. An integrated assessment model for cross-country pipelines. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2002, 22:703~721
[27]王蕾,李帆.城市燃气输配管网的可靠性评价.煤气与热力,2005,25(4):5~8
[28]唐子烨,马宪国.城市天然气供应系统的可靠性分析模型研究.广西大学学报(自然科学版),2003,28(3):241~245
[29]黄清武.城镇燃气管网系统可靠性与风险研究:[硕士学位论文].福建:福州大学,2003
[30] Deng J L. Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters. 1982, 1:288~294
[31]姜波.灰色系统与神经网络分析方法及其应用研究:[博士学位论文].武汉:华中科技大学,2004
[32] Deng J L. Introduction to the grey system theory. J. Grey Syst. 1989, 1:1~24
[33] H. S. Gau, C. Y. Hsieh, C. W. Liu, Application of grey correlation method to evaluate potential groundwater recharge sites. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2006, 20:407~421
[34]罗党.灰色决策问题的分析方法研究:[博士学位论文].南京:南京航空航天大学,2004
[35]田娜.灰色关联分析法在油气管道半定量风险评价中的应用.石油工程建设,2006,34(1):17~21
[36] Muhlbauer W K. Pipeline Risk Management Manual. Gulf Publishing Company, 1992
[37]万礼锋,尹贻林,张丽君,等.城市燃气管网安全分析体系.煤气与热力,2007,27(11):50~53
[38] Jo Y D, Crowl D A. Individual risk analysis of high-pressure natural gas pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2008, 21:589~595
[39] Arnaldos J, Casal J, Montiel H. Design of a computer tool for the evaluation of the consequences of accidental natural gas releases in distribution pipes. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1998,11:135~148
[40] Metropolo P L, Brown A E P. Natural Gas Pipeline Accident Consequence Analysis. 3rd International Conference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis & Hazard Mitigation. Sintra, Portugal, 2004:307~310
[41] Jo Y D, Ahn B J. A method of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2005, 123:1~12
[42] Sklavounos Spyros, Rigas Fotis. Estimation of safety distances in the vicinity of fuel gas pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2006,19:24~31
[43]刘斐,刘茂.城市燃气管线的定量风险分析.南开大学学报(自然科学版),2006,39(6):31~36
[44]崔辉,徐志胜,宋文华.人工燃气爆炸与中毒事故危害定量比较分析.灾害学,2008,23(4):96~100
[45]徐亚博,钱新明,刘振翼.天然气输送管道泄漏事故危害定量分析.中国安全科学学报,2008,18(1):147~149
[46] Krueger Joel, Smith Duncan. A practical approach to fire hazard analysis for offshore structures. J. Hazardous Materials. 2003, 104:107~122
[47] Suardina J A, McPhate A J. Fire and explosion assessment on oil and gas floating production storage offloading (FPSO): An effective screening and comparison tool. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2009, 87:147~160
[48]黄超,翁文国,吴健宏.城市燃气管网的故障传播模型.清华大学学报(自然科学版),2008,48 (8):1283~1286
[49]魏其涛,杨用君.城市燃气管网风险评价指标体系研究.中国科技信息,2007,6:198~200
[50]潘新新,周伟国.城市天然气高压输配管网风险评价.天然气工业,2007,27(8):100~102
[51]汪定怡,吕学珍.城市燃气输配管道风险评价指数体系的建立.城市燃气,2005,19(6):36~39
[52]储小燕,沈士明.南京市天然气利用工程管道的风险评价.油气储运,2005,24(3):13~16
[53]高俊波,郭越,王晓峰.城市燃气管网的定量风险分析模型研究.应用基础与工程科学学报,2008,16(2): 280~286
[54]王康林,曹明明,王伯铎.Muhlbauer风险分析法在管道风险评价中的应用.环境科学研究,2006,19(2):112~114
[55]潘家华.油气管道的风险分析.油气储运,1995,14(3):11~15
[56]何淑静,周伟国,严铭卿,等.城市燃气输配系统事故统计分析与对策.煤气与热力,2003,23(12):753~755
[57]王剑友.燃气输配系统事故统计分析及对策.煤气与热力,2001,21(2):178~179
[58]刘宝荣,朱喜成,杜宇峰,等.燃气系统漏损事故原因的定性定量分析.煤气与热力,2007,27(5):48~50
[59]王玉梅,郭书平.国外天然气管道事故分析.油气储运,2000,19(7):5~10
[60]王凯全,王宁,张弛,等.城市天然气管道风险特征与肯特法的改进.中国安全科学学报,2008,18(9):152~157
[61]曾静,陈国华.城市埋地燃气管道风险评估方法的适用性.煤气与热力,2007,27 (5):2~4
[62]余建星,黄振广,李建辉,孙大军.输油管道风险评估方法中风险分析因素权重调整研究.中国海上油气工程,2001,13(5):41~44
[63] Schlechter W P G. Facility risk review as a means to addressing existing risks during the life cycle of a process unit, operating or facility. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. 1996, 66:387~402.
[64] Dong Yuhua, Yu Datao. Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2005, 18:83~88
[65] Cooke Roger, Jager Eric. A Probabilistic Model for the Failure Frequency of Underground Gas Pipelines. Risk Analysis. 1998, 18:511~527
[66] Fu C, Yin Y L. Fault tree analysis for assessing Tianjin urban gas pipeline's fault. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. Tianjin, Peoples R China. 2007:358~362
[67]何淑静,周伟国,严铭卿.上海城市燃气输配管网失效模糊故障树分析法.同济大学学报,2005,33(4):507~511
[68] Jo Y D, Ahn B J. Analysis of hazard areas associated with high-pressure natural-gas pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2002, 15:179~188
[69]韩朱旸,翁文国.燃气管网定量风险分析方法综述.中国安全科学学报,2009,19(7):154~164
[70]周波,张国枢.有害物质泄漏扩散的数值模拟.工业安全与环保,2005,31(10):42~44
[71]霍春勇,董玉华,余大涛等.长输管线气体泄漏率的计算方法研究.石油学报,2004,25(1):101~105
[72]颜力,李长俊,廖柯熹.输气管道泄漏影响的危害性分析.内蒙古石油化工,2005(9):28~30
[73]赖建波,杨昭.高压燃气管道破裂的定量风险分析.天津大学学报,2007,40(5):589~593
[74]董玉华,周敬恩,高惠临等.长输管道稳态气体泄漏率的计算.油气储运,2002,21(8):11~15
[75]田贯三.管道燃气泄漏过程动态模拟的研究.山东建筑工程学院学报,1999,14(4):56~60
[76] Montiel Helena, V?lchez J A, Casal Joaquim. Mathematical modelling of accidental gas releases. J. Hazardous Materials. 1998, 59:211~233
[77]于畅,田贯三.城市燃气泄漏强度计算模型的探讨.山东建筑大学学报,2007,22(6):541~545
[78]唐保金,张增刚,汤云普等.燃气管道泄漏量计算方法.山东土木建筑学会燃气专业委员会2008年年会论文集,2008:37~42
[79]杨昭,张甫仁,赖建波.非等温长输管线稳态泄漏计算模型.天津大学学报,2005,38(12):1115~1121
[80]王大庆,霍春勇,高惠临.长输管线气体泄漏率简化计算方法.天然气工业,2008,28(1):116~118
[81]于明,狄彦,帅健.输气管道泄漏率计算与扩散模拟方法述评.管道技术与设备,2007(4):15~18
[82] Jo Y D, Ahn B J. A simple model for the release rate of hazardous gas from a hole on high-pressure pipelines. J. Hazardous Materials. 2003, A97:31~46
[83] Luo J H, Zheng M, Zhao X W, Huo C Y, et al. Simplified expression for estimating release rate of hazardous gas from a hole on high-pressure pipelines. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2006, 19:362~366
[84]向素平,冯良,周义超.天然气管道泄漏模型.天然气工业,2007,27(7):100~102
[85]刘中良,罗志云,王皆腾,等.天然气管道泄漏速率的确定.化工学报,2008,59(8):2121~2126
[86]潘旭海,蒋军成.危险性物质泄漏事故扩散过程模拟分析.中国职业安全卫生管理体系认证,2001(3):44~46
[87] American Petroleum Institute, Risk based resource document, API PR581, 2000
[88]李又绿,姚安林,李永杰.天然气管道泄漏扩散模型研究.天然气工业,2004,24(8): 201~203
[89]王文娟,刘剑锋.危险性气体泄漏扩散数学模拟研究.工业安全与环保,2006,32(11):23~25
[90]孙永庆,钟群鹏,张峥.城市燃气管道风险评估中失效后果的计算.天然气工业,2006,26(1):120~122
[91]邓新民.点源大气扩散模式计算的参数选取.成都气象学院学报,1999,14(2):139~146
[92]黄小美.城市燃气管道系统风险评价研究:[硕士学位论文].重庆:重庆大学,2004
[93]环境影响评价技术导则大气环境.HJ/T2.2-1993,1993
[94]潘旭海,蒋军成.化学危险性气体泄漏扩散模拟及其影响因素.南京化工大学学报,2001,23(1):19~22
[95]丁信伟,王淑兰,徐国庆.可燃及毒性气体泄漏扩散研究综述.化学工业与工程,1999,16(2):118~122
[96]杨昭,赖建波,韩金丽.天然气管道气体泄漏扩散过程研究.天然气工业,2007,27(7):97~99
[97]王英伟,孙雪.有风条件下点源高斯模式的参数敏感性分析.环境科学与管理,2008,33(10):178~180
[98]肖建明,陈国华,张瑞华.高斯烟羽模型扩散面积的算法研究.计算机与应用化学,2006,23(6):559~564
[99] Mazzoldi Alberto, Hill Tim, Colls J J. CFD and Gaussian atmospheric dispersion models: A comparison for leak from carbon dioxide transportation and storage facilities. Atmospheric Environment. 2008, 42:8046~8054
[100] Yang Zhao, Li Xihong, Lai Jianbo. Analysis on the diffusion hazards of dynamic leakage of gas pipeline. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2007, 92:47~53
[101]李伟,张奇.高压气体泄漏喷射和扩散的数值模拟.中国职业健康安全协会2008年学术年会论文集,2008:315~320
[102]中国国家标准化管理委员会.GB 17820-1999.国家天然气标准.北京:中国标准出版社,1999
[103] Technica. Techniques for Assessing Industrial Hazards. World Bank Technical Paper Number 55, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington DC, USA.1998
[104]王曰燕,罗金恒,赵新伟等.天然气输送管道火灾事故危险分析.天然气与石油,2005,23 (3):52~63
[105] API RP 521. Recommended Practice 521, third ed., API, Washington, DC, November, 1990
[106]刘俊娥,贾增科,李晓慧.城市燃气管道喷射火事故后果分析.河北工程大学学报(自然科学版),2007,24(4):53~56
[107]秦政先.天然气管道泄漏扩散及爆炸数值模拟研究:[硕士学位论文].四川南充:西南石油大学,2007
[108]毕明树.开敞空间可燃气云爆炸压力研究:[博士学位论文].大连:大连理工大学,2001
[109]孙博.开敞空间可燃气云爆炸研究:[硕士学位论文].大连:大连理工大学,2000
[110]金果.可燃性气云爆炸研究:[硕士学位论文].大连:大连理工大学,2000
[111]梁瑞,张春燕,姜峰等.天然气管道泄漏爆炸后果评价模型对比分析.中国安全科学学报,2007,17(8):131~135
[112] Centre for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineering, Guidelines for Evaluation the Characteristics of Vapour Cloud Explosion, Flash Fires, and BLEVE. New York, 1994
[113]田贯三,李兴泉.城镇燃气爆炸极限影响因素与计算误差的分析.中国安全科学学报,2002,12(6):48~51
[114]范喜生.管道内可燃物爆炸问题现状与研究方向.工业安全与防尘,1998,6:10~14
[115]胡栋,龙属川,吴传谦,等.可爆性气体爆炸极限和爆燃转变成爆轰的研究.爆炸与冲击,1989,9(3):266~275
[116]牛坤.开敞空间可燃气体扩散规律与爆燃现象的研究:[硕士学位论文].天津:河北工业大学:2007
[117] CPQRA, Guideline for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, ISBN 0-8169-0402-2, The Center for Chemical Process Safety of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1988
[118] Rausch A H, Eisenberg N A, Lynch C J. Continuing Development of the Vulnerability Model (VM2). Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC, Report No. CG-53-77, February, 1977
[119] IGE. Steel pipeline for high pressure gas transmission. IGE Code TD/1, fourth ed., Communication, vol. 1670, 2001
[120] Fernando D′?az Alonso, Enrique Gonz′alez Ferrada′s, Juan Francisco S′anchez P′erez. Characteristic overpressure–impulse–distance curves for vapour cloud explosions using the TNO Multi-Energy model. J. Hazardous Materials. 2006, A137:734~741
[121] Enrique Gonza′lez Ferrada′s, Fernando D?′az Alonso, Marta Doval Min?arro. Consequence analysis by means of characteristic curves to determine the damage to buildings from bursting spherical vessels. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2008, 86:175~181
[122] Fernando D?′az Alonso, Enrique Gonza′lez Ferrada′s, Marta Doval Min?arro. Consequence analysis by means of characteristic curves to determine the damage to buildings from the detonation of explosive substances as a function of TNT equivalence. J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2008, 21:74~81
[123] Fernando D′?az Alonso, Enrique Gonza′lez Ferrada′s, Juan Francisco Sa′nchez Pe′rez. Consequence analysis to determine damage to buildings from vapour cloud explosions using characteristic curves. J. Hazardous Materials. 2008, 159:264~270
[124] TNO Purple Book. Guideline for Quantitative Risk Assessment. Committee for the Prevention of Disasters. The Netherlands, 1999 (Chapter 6)
[125] Han Z Y, Weng WG. An integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network, J. Prevention in the Process Industries. 2010, 23:428~436
[126]袁长丰.基于GIS人口统计信息分析研究:[硕士学位论文].青岛:山东科技大学,2005
[127]昆明市统计局.2001年昆明统计年鉴.北京:中国统计出版社,2001
[128] Re′ka Albert, Hawoong Jeong, Albert-La′szlo′Baraba′si. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature. 2000, 406:378~381