本文選題：風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià) + 液氨儲(chǔ)罐��； 參考：《大連理工大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來(lái)我國(guó)化工園區(qū)建設(shè)發(fā)展迅速,而工業(yè)園區(qū)基本都建有大規(guī)模的貯罐區(qū),這些貯罐區(qū)內(nèi)存放著大量有毒、有害、易燃、易爆危險(xiǎn)化學(xué)品,大多屬重大危險(xiǎn)源,據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì),此類(lèi)危險(xiǎn)化學(xué)品發(fā)生泄漏事故的頻率在突發(fā)性污染事故中屬于頻率較高的一種。 化工廠(chǎng)為了方便常用危險(xiǎn)化學(xué)品貯存,通常以液化、高壓、低溫等形式將其存儲(chǔ)于儲(chǔ)罐等高壓或常壓容器中,因儲(chǔ)存條件苛刻,同時(shí)伴隨多種人為失誤導(dǎo)致的危險(xiǎn)操作,使得危險(xiǎn)化學(xué)品儲(chǔ)罐成為重大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)源,當(dāng)儲(chǔ)存容器發(fā)生泄露時(shí),有毒有害物質(zhì)泄漏至大氣中,會(huì)導(dǎo)致人身傷害及環(huán)境污染,并有可能伴隨火災(zāi)或爆炸等惡性事故。因此針對(duì)化學(xué)品突發(fā)性典型事故進(jìn)行風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)研究十分必要且具有實(shí)際意義,參考以往文獻(xiàn)資料,近年來(lái)液氨、液氯儲(chǔ)罐泄漏事故為發(fā)生頻率最高的事故,本文特以大連松木島化工園區(qū)中兩個(gè)實(shí)際建設(shè)工程項(xiàng)目——大化合成氨項(xiàng)目和大連染化集團(tuán)有限公司搬遷改造(一期)工程為例,對(duì)液氨、液氯儲(chǔ)罐泄漏事故進(jìn)行環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià),為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防范提供參考依據(jù)。 同時(shí),在閱讀大量文獻(xiàn)和此類(lèi)事故風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)報(bào)告書(shū)后總結(jié)發(fā)現(xiàn),前人在進(jìn)行危險(xiǎn)品風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)時(shí),并沒(méi)有對(duì)于儲(chǔ)罐泄露場(chǎng)景即泄漏源情況的選取展開(kāi)細(xì)致研究,忽視了相關(guān)參數(shù)選取對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)結(jié)果的影響,針對(duì)這一問(wèn)題,本文選取兩種氣象條件即D穩(wěn)定度風(fēng)速3.5m/s和F穩(wěn)定度風(fēng)速1.5m/s時(shí)的情景；兩種泄露位置即罐體和管路；不同泄漏高度,即罐頂和不同裂口液位；選取不同泄漏源大小,即5mm小孔破裂,50mm大孔破裂,20%管路破裂和100%管路破裂四種模型,就各種泄漏模式下的后果影響進(jìn)行定性分析及定量計(jì)算,比較液氨、液氯儲(chǔ)罐發(fā)生泄露時(shí)不同泄露狀態(tài)、泄露位置、泄露條件等作用下的預(yù)測(cè)結(jié)果,總結(jié)各泄露條件下整合預(yù)測(cè)結(jié)果,進(jìn)行定性分析,并通過(guò)事故最遠(yuǎn)影響距離和事故概率的乘積得到不同事故場(chǎng)景的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)值,最終得出結(jié)論,選取20%管徑泄露時(shí)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)值最大,為突發(fā)性典型事故泄漏參數(shù)選取提供參考。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the construction of chemical industry parks in China has developed rapidly, and industrial parks have basically built large-scale storage areas, which contain a large number of toxic, harmful, flammable and explosive dangerous chemicals, most of which are major dangerous sources, according to statistics.The frequency of leakage accidents of this kind of dangerous chemicals belongs to the higher frequency in sudden pollution accidents.In order to facilitate the storage of commonly used hazardous chemicals, chemical plants usually store them in high pressure or atmospheric pressure containers such as storage tanks in the form of liquefaction, high pressure and low temperature. Because of the harsh storage conditions and the dangerous operation caused by many human errors,When the storage container leaks into the atmosphere, it will lead to personal injury and environmental pollution, and may be accompanied by a fire or explosion and other malignant accidents.Therefore, it is necessary and meaningful to study the risk assessment of typical chemical accidents. Referring to the previous literatures, the leakage accidents of liquid ammonia and liquid chlorine storage tanks are the most frequent accidents in recent years.In this paper, two practical construction projects in Dalian Songmu Island Chemical Industrial Park, Dahua synthetic ammonia Project and Dalian dyeing and Chemical Group Co., Ltd. Relocation and renovation (first phase) project are taken as examples.The environmental risk assessment of leakage accident of liquid chlorine storage tank provides reference for risk prevention.At the same time, after reading a large number of literatures and the risk assessment report of such accidents, it is found that the former people did not carry out a careful study on the selection of the leakage source, that is, the leakage source, when the former people carried out the risk assessment of dangerous goods.In view of this problem, this paper selects two meteorological conditions, namely D stability wind speed 3.5m/s and F stability wind speed 1.5m/s, the two leakage locations are tank and pipeline, and the influence of relative parameters on the risk prediction results is ignored in this paper, aiming at this problem, two meteorological conditions, namely D stability wind speed 3.5m/s and F stability wind speed 1.5m/s, are selected in this paper.Different leakage height, that is, tank top and different crack liquid level, four kinds of models of different leakage source size, that is, 5mm small hole rupture of 50mm large hole rupture of 20% pipeline and 100% pipe rupture, are selected.Qualitative analysis and quantitative calculation of the effects of various leakage modes are carried out to compare the prediction results under the action of different leakage states, leakage locations and leakage conditions in liquid ammonia and liquid chlorine storage tanks.This paper summarizes the integrated prediction results under various leakage conditions, carries on qualitative analysis, and obtains the risk value of different accident scenarios through the product of the farthest influence distance and accident probability of accident, and finally comes to the conclusion that the maximum risk value is when 20% diameter leakage is selected.It provides a reference for the selection of leakage parameters in sudden typical accidents.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：X937

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 何巖;;液氨泄漏產(chǎn)生的原因與預(yù)防措施[J];電大理工;2010年04期

2 江輝仙;黃達(dá)滄;林廣發(fā);;街區(qū)突發(fā)性泄漏的氣體擴(kuò)散過(guò)程仿真技術(shù)的集成試驗(yàn)[J];地球信息科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

3 任鋒;;液氨泄漏的環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[J];化學(xué)工程與裝備;2010年05期

4 彭林;;液氨儲(chǔ)罐事故泄漏環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)探討[J];廣東化工;2009年04期

5 金建祥;單學(xué)凱;丁成;;化工廠(chǎng)液氯泄漏環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)研究[J];廣東化工;2009年11期

6 田裘學(xué);健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)的基本內(nèi)容與方法[J];甘肅環(huán)境研究與監(jiān)測(cè);1997年04期

7 劉春祥,蔡鳳英,談宗山;某液氨儲(chǔ)罐泄漏的后果分析及對(duì)策[J];工業(yè)安全與環(huán)保;2004年10期

8 孫東亮;蔣軍成;張明廣;;液氨儲(chǔ)罐泄漏擴(kuò)散模型的改進(jìn)研究[J];工業(yè)安全與環(huán)保;2011年01期

9 張勇;孫世群;殷福才;程靜;;生產(chǎn)過(guò)程中氯氣泄漏的環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)方法[J];合肥工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2009年09期

10 王允升;甲醇罐區(qū)的火災(zāi)爆炸危險(xiǎn)性分析及防火防爆設(shè)計(jì)[J];化工設(shè)計(jì);2000年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 周娟;山東省典型農(nóng)產(chǎn)品基地土壤微生物多樣性與地球化學(xué)元素關(guān)系研究[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 林其彪;液氨泄漏事故模擬及擴(kuò)散影響研究[D];哈爾濱理工大學(xué);2011年

2 韓冰;地下水有機(jī)污染場(chǎng)地健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)[D];中國(guó)地質(zhì)大學(xué)（北京）;2006年

3 付鐵;石化項(xiàng)目大氣環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2006年

4 王洪麗;合成氨項(xiàng)目環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];北京化工大學(xué);2006年

5 黃玲;化學(xué)工業(yè)區(qū)環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)研究及應(yīng)用[D];西安建筑科技大學(xué);2008年

6 杜喜臣;化工行業(yè)環(huán)境風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)方法的研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2008年

7 周慧霞;突發(fā)性大氣污染事件人群健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)技術(shù)研究[D];中國(guó)疾病預(yù)防控制中心;2010年

8 聶新艷;規(guī)劃環(huán)評(píng)中區(qū)域生態(tài)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)價(jià)技術(shù)研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1732882