Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Production Station Equipment Based on Event Tree Cascading Fault Deduction and Evidential Reasoning

doi:10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.22097

Abstract

Abstract:

The hydrogen production station system is complex and vulnerable to external attacks, causing cascading failures and serious safety accidents. The cascading failure deduction method based on event tree was adopted to determine the consequences and occurrence probability of cascading failures of hydrogen production station equipment. On this basis, a cascading fault risk evaluation index system considering safety, economy and environmental protection was established. Considering the randomness and uncertainty of serious consequences and impact, a fuzzy membership function was used to quantify the evaluation index. Finally, a risk assessment model based on evidential reasoning was established and applied to the risk evaluation of hydrogen production station equipment, to realize the risk assessment and ranking of hydrogen production station equipment. The example shows that the method is feasible and effective, which provides a support for the next step of making safety precautions for hydrogen production station equipment.

Key words: coal-fired power station, power engineering, hydrogen production station equipment, event tree, risk evaluation

CLC Number:

TK 91

Yucheng LIU, Yuan YANG, Yuhao HU, Yuhang LI, Zitai ZHAO, Zhiyong MA, Yuliang DONG. Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Production Station Equipment Based on Event Tree Cascading Fault Deduction and Evidential Reasoning[J]. Power Generation Technology, 2024, 45(1): 42-50.

Figures/Tables 12

References 27

1	冯伟忠，李励．“双碳”目标下煤电机组低碳、零碳和负碳化转型发展路径研究与实践[J]．发电技术，2022，43(3)：452-461． doi:10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.22061
	FENG W Z， LI L ．Research and practice on development path of low-carbon， zero-carbon and negative carbon transformation of coal-fired power units under “double carbon” targets[J]．Power Generation Technology，2022，43(3)：452-461． doi:10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.22061
2	张全斌，周琼芳．基于“双碳”目标的中国火力发电技术发展路径研究[J]．发电技术，2023，44(2)：143-154． doi:10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.22092
	ZHANG Q B， ZHOU Q F ．Research on the development path of China’s thermal power generation technology based on the goal of “carbon peak and carbon neutralization”[J]．Power Generation Technology，2023，44(2)：143-154． doi:10.12096/j.2096-4528.pgt.22092
3	董洁，乔建强．“双碳”目标下先进煤炭清洁利用发电技术研究综述[J]．中国电力，2022，55(8)：202-212．
	DONG J， QIAO J Q ．A review on advanced clean coal power generation technology under “carbon peaking and carbon neutrality” goal[J]．Electric Power，2022，55(8)：202-212．
4	张兴平，何澍，王泽嘉，等．不同新能源渗透率下燃煤机组行为策略分析[J]．电力建设，2022，43(5)：9-17． doi:10.12204/j.issn.1000-7229.2022.05.002
	ZHANG X P， HE S， WANG Z J ．Behavior strategy of coal-fired units under different new energy penetration rate[J]．Electric Power Construction，2022，43(5)：9-17． doi:10.12204/j.issn.1000-7229.2022.05.002
5	王晓彬，孟婧，石访，等．煤电与清洁电源协同演进优化模型及综合评价体系研究[J]．电力系统保护与控制，2022，50(13)：43-52．
	WANG X B， MENG J， SHI F ．An optimization model and comprehensive evaluation system for the synergistic evolution of coal-fired power plants and clean power sources[J]．Power System Protection and Control，2022，50(13)：43-52．
6	任建强，王璐阳，吴家浩，等．基于情景构建与推演的新能源电力设备运行风险评估[J]．清华大学学报(自然科学版)，2022，62(10)：1571-1578．
	REN J Q， WANG L Y， WU J H，et al ．Operating risk assessments of new energy power equipment based on scenario construction and deduction[J]．Journal of Tsinghua University (Nature Science Edition)，2022，62(10)：1571-1578．
7	刘玉良，刘耀年，术茜，等．停运模型与事件树理论在电力系统脆性风险评估中的应用[J]．黑龙江电力，2011，33(1)：58-61． doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-1663.2011.01.017
	LIU Y L， LIU Y N， ZHU X，et al ．The application of outage mode and event tree theory in power system brittleness risk assessment[J]．Heilongjiang Electric Power，2011，33(1)：58-61． doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-1663.2011.01.017
8	RASOOL K ．Event-tree analysis by fuzzy probability[J]．IEEE Transactions on Reliability，1991， 40(1)：120-124． doi:10.1109/24.75348
9	FERDOUS R， KHAN F， SADIQ R，et al ．Handling data uncertainties in event tree analysis[J]．Process Safety and Environmental Protection，2009，87(5)：283-292． doi:10.1016/j.psep.2009.07.003
10	LOWER M， MAGOTT J， SKORUPSKI J ．Analysis of air traffic incidents using event trees with fuzzy probabilities[J]．Fuzzy Sets and Systems，2016，293： 50-79． doi:10.1016/j.fss.2015.11.004
11	PURBA J H， TJAHYANI D T S， WIDODO S，et al ．Fuzzy probability based event tree analysis for calculating core damage frequency in nuclear power plant probabilistic safety assessment[J]． Progress in Nuclear Energy，2020，125：103376． doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2020.103376
12	龙丹冰，解丽萍，杨成．基于熵算法改进的故障树-云模型风险分析方法[J] ．安全与环境学报，2021，5：1-11．
	LONG D B， XIE LI P， YANG C ．Visual risk assessment method based on the fault tree analysis coupled cloud models using modified entropy algorithm[J]．Journal of Safety and Environment，2021，5：1-11．
13	吴寒梅．电站设备故障风险分析与维修决策[D]．北京：华北电力大学，2011．
	WU H M ．Risk analysis and maintenance decision for power plant equipment faults[D]．Beijing：North China Electric Power University，2011．
14	宫运化，徐越．基于动态故障树的化工系统动态风险评价[J]．安全与环境工程，2015，22(2)：134-138．
	GONG Y H， XU Y ．Dynamic risk assessment for chemical system based on dynamic fault tree[J]．Safety and Environmental Engineering，2015，22(2)：134-138．
15	张玉涛，林国铖，李亚清．基于事故树J-风险矩阵法的脱硫工艺中毒窒息事故风险评估[J]．西安科技大学学报，2020，40(1)：40-48．
	ZHANG Y T， LIN G C， LI Y Q ．Risk assessment of suffocation and poisoning accidents in desulfurization process based on FTA-risk matrix method[J]．Journal of Xi’an University of Science and Technology，2020，40(1)：40-48．
16	董玉亮，李亚琼，王珍和，等．基于证据理论的燃煤电站安全评价研究[J]．安全与环境学报，2010，10(3)：179-183． doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6094.2010.03.043
	DONG Y L， LI Y Q， WANG Z H，et al ．Safety evaluation on fuel-fired power plant based on evidence theory[J]．Journal of Safety and Environment，2010，10(3)：179-183． doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6094.2010.03.043
17	TIAN Y C， LEE M ．Assessment of terrorist attack risk of a BWR nuclear power plant using Monte Carlo simulations[J]．Nuclear Technology，2021，207(12)：1913-1933． doi:10.1080/00295450.2020.1843955
18	GEORGE P G， RENJITH V R ．Evolution of safety and security risk assessment methodologies towards the use of Bayesian networks in process industries[J]．Process Safety and Environmental Protection，2021，149：758-775． doi:10.1016/j.psep.2021.03.031
19	LI M， ZHANG R ．Evolving a weighted Bayesian network for consequence assessment of terrorist attack[J]．IEEE Access，2020，8：88282-88293． doi:10.1109/access.2020.2993016
20	ZHAO Y， TONG J， ZHANG L ．Rapid source term prediction in nuclear power plant accidents based on dynamic Bayesian networks and probabilistic risk assessment[J]．Annals of Nuclear Energy， 2021，158：108217． doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108217
21	宋贵安.基于数据驱动的电站设备性能劣化评估方法研究[D]．南京：东南大学，2022．
	SONG G A ．Research on performance deterioration evaluation method of power plant equipment based on data-driven[D]．Nanjing：Southeast University，2022．
22	张芳，张随平，张萍.电站设备运行风险分析[J]．甘肃科技，2014，30(9)：56-58． doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-0952.2014.09.020
	ZHANG F， ZHANG S P， ZHANG P ．Operation risk analysis of power station equipment[J]．Gansu Science and Technology，2014，30(9)：56-58． doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-0952.2014.09.020
23	蔡庄红，黄庭刚．安全评价技术[M]．北京：化学工业出版社，2014．
	CAI Z H， HUANG T G ．Safety evaluation technology[M]．Beijing：Chemical Industry Press，2014．
24	刘诗飞，詹予忠．重大危险源辨识及危害后果分析[M]．北京：化学业出版社，2004． doi:10.1002/0471739421.ch22
	LIU S F， ZHAN Y Z ．Identification of major hazard sources and hazard consequence analysis[M]．Beijing：Chemical Industry Press，2004． doi:10.1002/0471739421.ch22
25	王建．储罐区可燃气体泄漏扩散模拟及爆燃灾害评估[D]．大连：大连理工大学，2013．
	WANG J ．Simulation of combustible gas leakage and diffusion and deflagration disaster assessment in tank area[D]．Dalian：Dalian University of Technology，2013．
26	刘合香．模糊数学理论及其应用[M]．北京：科学出版社，2012． doi:10.1109/cecnet.2012.6201505
	LIU H X ．Fuzzy mathematics theory and its application[M]．Beijing：Science publishing house，2012． doi:10.1109/cecnet.2012.6201505
27	YANG J B， SINGH M C ．An envidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty[J]．IEEE Transactions on System，Man，and Cybernetics，1994，24(1)：1-18． doi:10.1109/21.259681

量化指标	风险指数
量化指标	1	2	3	4	5
人员伤亡/人	[1, 2]	[3, 4]	[5, 7]	[8, 10]	(10, +∞)
半致死范围/m	[0, 100)	[100, 250)	[250, 400)	[400, 500)	[500, +∞)
设备损失/万元	[0, 1)	[1, 5)	[5, 10)	[10, 20)	[20, +∞)
电网影响/供电能力	[100%, 90%)	[90%, 80%)	[80%, 70%)	[70%, 60%)	[60%, 100%)
环境影响/m	[0, 500)	[500, 2 000)	[2 000, 4 000)	[4 000, 7 000)	[7 000, +∞)
经济损失/万元	[0, 200)	[200, 400)	[400, 650)	[650, 1 000)	[1 000, +∞)
恢复时间/d	[0, 1)	[1, 5)	[5, 10)	[10, 15)	[15, +∞)

量化指标	风险指数
量化指标	1	2	3	4	5
人员伤亡/人	[1, 2]	[3, 4]	[5, 7]	[8, 10]	(10, +∞)
半致死范围/m	[0, 100)	[100, 250)	[250, 400)	[400, 500)	[500, +∞)
设备损失/万元	[0, 1)	[1, 5)	[5, 10)	[10, 20)	[20, +∞)
电网影响/供电能力	[100%, 90%)	[90%, 80%)	[80%, 70%)	[70%, 60%)	[60%, 100%)
环境影响/m	[0, 500)	[500, 2 000)	[2 000, 4 000)	[4 000, 7 000)	[7 000, +∞)
经济损失/万元	[0, 200)	[200, 400)	[400, 650)	[650, 1 000)	[1 000, +∞)
恢复时间/d	[0, 1)	[1, 5)	[5, 10)	[10, 15)	[15, +∞)

事件后果	制氢站设备
事件后果	电解槽	氢除湿器	氢分离洗涤器	储氢罐	氢气管道
氢气泄漏扩散	0.050 40	0.080 784 0	0.090 480	0.038 850	0.044 640
氢气泄漏火灾事故	0.302 28	0.552 948 8	0.515 411	0.368 263	0.545 228
氢气泄漏爆炸事故	0.247 32	0.046 267 2	0.292 887	0.292 887	0.030 132

事件后果	制氢站设备
事件后果	电解槽	氢除湿器	氢分离洗涤器	储氢罐	氢气管道
氢气泄漏扩散	0.050 40	0.080 784 0	0.090 480	0.038 850	0.044 640
氢气泄漏火灾事故	0.302 28	0.552 948 8	0.515 411	0.368 263	0.545 228
氢气泄漏爆炸事故	0.247 32	0.046 267 2	0.292 887	0.292 887	0.030 132

风险量化指标	电解槽损坏后果
风险量化指标	氢气持续泄漏，大气扩散，碱液泄漏	氢气持续泄漏，遇明火、喷射火、闪火	氢气持续泄漏，遇明火，沸腾液体膨胀蒸汽爆炸、蒸汽云爆炸
人员伤亡	1	2	5
设备损失	1	2	2
电网影响	1	2	3
环境影响	2	2	4
经济影响	1	2	2
恢复时间	1	2	4