| 199 | 0 | 83 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
城市军民融合区内公共建筑、民用住宅与军事区域相邻，区域内燃气管网空间复杂，燃气泄漏爆炸风险具有隐蔽性强、时变性显著等特征。针对现有研究中指标适用性不足及评估时效性滞后等问题，本文在“人-物-环-管”分析框架下，考虑该区域特有的伪装、专业素质低及军事打击等人员因素，构建了包含17 类致灾因子的燃气泄漏风险指标体系，并基于该体系利用贝叶斯网络建立燃气泄漏概率模型。在此基础上，融合燃气泄漏发生概率、单位影响权重与实时甲烷物质的量比数据，建立了燃气泄漏爆炸动态风险评估模型。以某军民融合区为研究对象，模拟三类燃气泄漏典型情形发现，泄漏0.5 h时刻的流量、风险面积及综合影响呈现显著量级差异；随时间推移至5.0 h，虽风险面积趋同(约2 000 m2)，但综合影响仍具备明显区分度。基于评估与模拟结果，提出了探测器监测半径为3 m的最优布设方案，实现了100%监测覆盖率与超过83%的风险识别精确率，并确定了I级风险需配置超过70%总应急资源的调配策略，实现了从风险评估到监测预警及资源配置的闭环联动。
Abstract：Based on the literature， such as scientific papers， typical incidents， information from the China Gas Association， and the Chinese National Gas Accident Analysis Report， 2321 gas leakage incidents that occurred between 2017 and 2023 were classified according to their accident causation. Based on the Human-Object-Environment-Management framework， considering personnel-related factors specific to civil-military integration districts， including disguise， poor professional quality， and military strikes， a gas risk indicator system comprising 17 categories of disaster-inducing factors was established. The prior probability of gas leakage (2.27%) was calculated by determining the ratio of the number of gas consumers， gas network length， and number of corresponding incidents， and the prior probabilities for 17 disaster-inducing factors were further calculated. The probability of gas network leakage due to disaster-inducing factors was calculated using a Bayesian model. The results revealed significant differences in the likelihood of occurrence among the three personnel-related factors within the integration districts. In particular， the probability of gas leakage induced by poor professional quality (36.7%) was approximately 7.3 times higher than that associated with disguise. A blast risk assessment model for civil-military integration districts was built by combining the regional characteristics of the integration district and the detector's methane molar ratio. The K-means clustering method was used to categorize the risk grades into four classes， with corresponding risk thresholds of 0.0357， 0.1838， and 0.5180， respectively. Taking a civil-military integration district as a case study， to research the influence of blast risk that three disaster-inducing factors， it was found that at 0.5 hours after gas leakage， significant differences are observed in the following aspects: leakage quantity of flow (under the military strikes， approximately 99.19 times that of the poor professional quality and 1 111.78 times that of the disguise)， risk areas (approximately 2.76 times that of the disguise and 2.97 times that of the poor professional quality)， and influencing degree (under the military strikes， approximately 6.67 times that of the poor professional quality and 9.23 times that of the disguise). By 5.0 hours， although the risk areas (approximately 2000 m2)， the overall influencing degree remained distinctly different. Therefore， the proposed optimized detector placement for the case in which the detectors are arranged in a hexagonal (honeycomb) pattern with a monitoring radius of 3 m and a distance of 5.2 m achieves 100% monitoring coverage and a risk identification accuracy of over 83%. It was further determined that Level I risk areas require the allocation of more than 70% of the total emergency resources， thereby realizing a closed-loop linkage from risk assessment to monitoring and early warning， and ultimately to emergency resource allocation.
[1] 工业和信息化部 财政部 国土资源部关于进一步做好国家新型工业化产业示范基地创建工作的指导意见[EB/OL]. (2012-02-15) [2025-10-27]. https://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2012-02/15/content＿2067019.htm.
[2] 李敬法， 苏越， 张衡， 等. 掺氢天然气管道输送研究进展[J]. 天然气工业， 2021， 41(04): 137-152.
[3] 李丽华， 巴锐， 张辉. 国家安全风险评估机制与方法的比较研究[J]. 国家安全研究， 2022， (05): 33-55， 162.
[4] 徐宗煌. 系统视域下新时代国家安全风险评估体系与模型构建研究（英文）[J/OL]. 武汉大学学报(自然科学版英文): 1-16 [2025-12-11]. https://link.cnki.net/urlid/42.1405.N.20250918.2158.002.
[5] 曾小康， 冯阳， 赖文庆， 等. 基于AHP-熵权法的城市燃气管道风险评价[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术， 2021， 17(05): 130-135.
[6] 冯登， 曹洪伟， 祝东， 等. 融合N-K模型与动态贝叶斯网络的燃气管网耦合风险评估[J]. 安全与环境学报， 2025， 25(07): 2484-2492.
[7] 吴翔飞， 牛建龙， 王静舞， 等. 城市埋地燃气管道泄漏风险演化模型构建与动态评估[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版)， 2025， 65(03): 521-531.
[8] 瞿英， 王旭茗， 王玉恒， 等. 基于多态模糊贝叶斯网络的城市燃气管道事故风险预测与诊断研究[J]. 河北科技大学学报， 2023， 44(04): 411-420.
[9] Bai Yiping， Wu Jiansong， Ren Qingru， et al. A BN-based risk assessment model of natural gas pipelines integrating knowledge graph and DEMATEL[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection， 2023， 171: 640-654.
[10] Wang Wenhe， Mou Dan， Li Feng， et al. Dynamic failure probability analysis of urban gas pipeline network[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries， 2021， 72: 104552.
[11] Wang Wenhe， Shen Kuiling， Wang Beibei， et al. Failure probability analysis of the urban buried gas pipelines using Bayesian networks[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection， 2017， 111: 678-686.
[12] US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. An assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants[M]. Commonwealth of Virginia: National Technical Information Service， 1975.
[13] Acosta C G， Siu N O. Dynamic event tree analysis method (DETAM) for accident sequence analysis[R]. Cambridge， Mass.: Dept. of Nuclear Engineering， Massachusetts Institute of Technology， 1991， 1991.
[14] Liang Wei， Lin Weipeng， Zhang Laibin， et al. Natural gas pipeline risk assessment for third-party interference based on fault tree analysis[M]// American Society of Civil Engineers. ICPTT 2011: Sustainable Solutions For Water， Sewer， Gas， And Oil Pipelines. State of New York: American Society of Civil Engineers Press， 2011: 1657-1666.
[15] Lu Linlin， Liang Wei， Zhang Laibin， et al. A comprehensive risk evaluation method for natural gas pipelines by combining a risk matrix with a bow-tie model[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering， 2015， 25: 124-133.
[16] Wang Zhenping， Gui Xiaoyun， Wang Weifeng， et al. Gas pipeline leakage risk analysis based on dynamic Bayesian network[J]. Processes， 2025， 13(4): 927.
[17] 张继信， 黄东阳， 尤秋菊， 等. 基于动态贝叶斯网络的城市综合管廊燃气泄漏动态风险评价[J]. 安全与环境学报， 2023， 23(10): 3455-3464.
[18] Kazmi S， Kambhampati C， Cleland J G F， et al. Dynamic risk stratification using Markov chain modelling in patients with chronic heart failure[J]. ESC Heart Failure， 2022， 9(5): 3009-3018.
[19] 刘霞， 严晓， 刘世宏. 非常规突发事件的性质和特征探析[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报(社会科学版)， 2011， 24(03): 13-17.
[20] 刘占省， 刘子圣， 孙佳佳， 等. 基于数字孪生的智能建造方法及模型试验[J]. 建筑结构学报， 2021， 42(06): 26-36.
[21] Raveendran A， Renjith V R， Madhu G. A comprehensive review on dynamic risk analysis methodologies[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries， 2022， 76: 104734.
[22] 疏学明， 颜峻， 胡俊， 等. 基于Bayes网络的建筑火灾风险评估模型[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版)， 2020， 60(04): 321-327.
[23] 范维澄. 公共安全科学导论[M]. 北京: 科学出版社， 2013:45-50.
[24] 刘纪坤， 黄杰， 王翠霞. 基于组合赋权可拓模型的化工园区应急管理能力评价[J]. 安全与环境学报， 2023， 23(05): 1423-1430.
[25] 文政， 张健钦， 沈博， 等. 应急元宇宙关键技术及在交通中的应用研究[J]. 公路， 2025， 70(07): 251-260.
[26] 王迪， 蔡东军， 房鑫炎， 等. 动态综合评价方法在电网应急能力评估中的应用[J]. 电力系统保护与控制， 2019， 47(16): 101-107.
[27] 陈军， 兀亚伟， 李垣志， 等. 基于动态贝叶斯网络的燃气管网燃爆风险分析[J]. 北京理工大学学报， 2021， 41(07): 696-705.
[28] Zhang Xu， Ng M X Y， Yu Kaixiang， et al. Quantitative risk-informed sensor placement optimization for chemical leak detection in a complex laboratory layout using the CFD-ANN approach[J]. ACS Chemical Health & Safety， 2025， 32(6): 716-736.
[29] 肖清滔， 徐迪雄. 军事救援分级部署策略保障上限仿真研究[J]. 计算机仿真， 2024， 41(08): 6-12， 110.
[30] Mohsin A S M， Choudhury S H， Muyeed M A. Automatic priority analysis of emergency response systems using internet of things (IoT) and machine learning (ML)[J]. Transportation Engineering， 2025， 19: 100304.
[31] Zhang Han， Zhang Runze， Sun Jiamanzhen. Developing real-time IoT-based public safety alert and emergency response systems[J]. Scientific Reports， 2025， 15(1): 29056.
[32] 全国物流信息管理标准化技术委员会(SAC/TC 267). GB/T 37936-2019 军民通用资源 信息分类与编码编制要求[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社， 2019.
[33] 吕良海， 梁艺苑， 张淏彬， 等. 模糊DBN的室内燃气泄漏动态风险评估方法研究[J]. 安全与环境学报， 2024， 24(04): 1337-1345.
[34] 田琦. 城市燃气管网泄漏致灾灾害风险评价研究[D]. 北京: 首都经济贸易大学， 2022.
[35] 王春雪. 城市燃气管道泄漏风险系统动力学仿真分析[J]. 消防科学与技术， 2017， 36(09): 1287-1291.
[36] 湖北省应急管理厅. 湖北十堰“6·13”重大燃气爆炸事故[Z/OL]. (2021-10-02) [2025-10-27]. https://yjt.hubei.gov.cn/yjgl/aqsc/sgdc/202109/P020211002415958135749.pdf.
[37] 中华人民共和国应急管理部. 宁夏银川富洋烧烤店“6·21”特别重大燃气爆炸事故调查报告[Z/OL]. (2024-01-27) [2025-10-27]. https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/sgcc/tbzdsgdcbg/2024dcbg/202401/P020240127592753517397.pdf.
Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China. Investigation report on the particularly serious gas explosion accident at fuyang barbecue restaurant in yinchuan， Ningxia “6·21”[Z/OL]. (2024-01-27) [2025-10-27]. https://www.mem.gov.cn/gk/sgcc/tbzdsgdcbg/2024dcbg/202401/P020240127592753517397.pdf.
[38] 吉林省人民政府. 松原市“7·4”城市燃气管道泄漏爆炸较大事故调查报告--湖北省住房和城乡建设厅[EB/OL]. (2019-10-28) [2025-10-27]. https://zjt.hubei.gov.cn/bmdt/ztzl/hbcjda/dxgx/201910/t20191028＿81441.shtml.
Jilin Provincial People's Government. Songyuan “7·4” urban gas pipeline leakage and explosion major accident investigation report — department of housing and urban-rural development of Hubei province[EB/OL]. (2019-10-28) [2025-10-27]. https://zjt.hubei.gov.cn/bmdt/ztzl/hbcjda/dxgx/201910/t20191028＿81441.shtml.
[39] 中国城市燃气协会. 燃气数据[EB/OL]. (2025-07-30) [2025-10-27]. https://www.chinagas.org.cn/4638/index.html.
[40] 中国城市燃气协会. 安全报告[EB/OL]. (2025-06-24) [2025-10-27]. https://www.chinagas.org.cn/4684/index.html.
[41] 中国城市燃气协会安全管理工作委员会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2023年）[EB/OL]. (2024-02-01) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/geFeoHhnzsAoFDt7xIM01Q.
Safe & Security Management Committee of China Gas Association. National gas accident analysis report (2023)[EB/OL]. (2024-02-01) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/geFeoHhnzsAoFDt7xIM01Q.
[42] 中国城市燃气协会安全管理工作委员会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2022年）[EB/OL]. (2023-02-25) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/＿hug3IxPt1Z7WT8TFXGCEA.
[43] 中国城市燃气协会安全管理工作委员会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2021年）[EB/OL]. (2022-06-21) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/bZCB＿i3TxIex0rMMzCYArA.
Safe & Security Management Committee of China Gas Association. National gas accident analysis report (2021)[EB/OL]. (2022-06-21) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/bZCB＿i3TxIex0rMMzCYArA.
[44] 中国城市燃气协会安全管理工作委员会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2020年）[EB/OL]. (2021-03-13) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YvI6K0cWPwQIVFng2EFilg.
Safe & Security Management Committee of China Gas Association. National gas accident analysis report (2020)[EB/OL]. (2021-03-13) [2025-10-27]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YvI6K0cWPwQIVFng2EFilg.
[45] 中国城市燃气协会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2019年）[EB/OL]. (2020-01-08) [2025-10-27]. https://www.sohu.com/a/365467429＿648681.
[46] 中国城市燃气协会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2018年）[EB/OL]. (2019-01-04) [2025-10-27]. https://www.sohu.com/a/286549576＿648681.
[47] 中国城市燃气协会. 全国燃气事故分析报告（2017年）[EB/OL]. (2018-01-04) [2025-10-27]. https://www.sohu.com/a/214647306＿648681.
[48] 孙占辉， 张恒， 潘睿， 等. 古建筑火灾风险智能孪生评估方法研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术， 2024， 20(09): 29-38.
[49] 杜雨霁， 付明， 端木维可， 等. 基于FAHP-ICV的燃气管网风险评估方法[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版)， 2023， 63(06): 941-950.
[50] 杨凯. 城市燃气管道泄漏多因素耦合致灾机理与灾害控制研究[D]. 北京: 首都经济贸易大学， 2016.
[51] 刘丹， 袁蕙， 万伟， 等. 红外光谱法在氢燃料电池汽车氢气分析中的应用[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析， 2025， 45(04): 901-907.
[52] 安徽省住房和城乡建设厅. DB34/T 4021—2021 城市生命线工程安全运行监测技术标准[S]. 合肥:安徽省工程与建设杂志社， 2021.
[53] Fukshansky L. Revisiting the hexagonal lattice: on optimal lattice circle packing[J]. Elemente der Mathematik， 2011， 66(1): 1-9.
基本信息:
DOI：10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2025.2205
中图分类号:TU996.9
引用信息:
[1]孙占辉,成啸,潘睿,等.军民融合区内燃气泄漏爆炸动态风险评估方法研究[J].安全与环境学报().DOI:10.13637/j.issn.1009-6094.2025.2205.
基金信息:
国家重点研发计划课题（2023YFC3010005）; 魁元实验室第一批开放基金课题（KY202430）
2026-01-22
2026-01-22
2026-01-22