Suitability evaluation of emergency shelter site selection based on improved regret theory for toxic gas leakage accidents

IF 3.6 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL
Jinghong Wang , Congcong Ge , Yuqing Liu , Jialin Wu , Yan Wang , Juncheng Jiang
{"title":"Suitability evaluation of emergency shelter site selection based on improved regret theory for toxic gas leakage accidents","authors":"Jinghong Wang ,&nbsp;Congcong Ge ,&nbsp;Yuqing Liu ,&nbsp;Jialin Wu ,&nbsp;Yan Wang ,&nbsp;Juncheng Jiang","doi":"10.1016/j.jlp.2025.105641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>During a disaster, shelters can effectively reduce the threat to human life safety and facilitate the rescue operations conducted by emergency responders. Hence, the rationality of emergency shelter site selection directly affects evacuation efficiency and rescue effectiveness. This study evaluates the suitability of emergency shelter site selection in the context of accidents in chemical industry parks. To address the limitations of existing evaluation models in accounting for toxic gas impacts, a risk function was introduced to refine the regret theory, enabling a more accurate reflection of toxic gas effects on shelter layout. Using an improved CTM model with the Tianjin Port area in China as the study site, evacuation route, time, and speed data were obtained and used as input values to calculate the utility and regret values for selecting different shelters. Given the significant impact of wind direction on gas dispersion, simulations, and evaluations were conducted with various wind direction parameters. The evaluation results indicate that under the influence of toxic gases, with ENE and NE wind directions, Shelter S4, located northwest of the Tianjin Port area, has the lowest regret value, with a regret value difference of 42.42 %–82.35 % compared to other location options. Under SE wind direction, the shelter with the lowest regret value is Shelter S2, located southeast of the Tianjin Port area. The regret value differences among the other nearby shelters are insignificant, with the maximum difference within 31 %. Overall, setting the shelter at location S4 is a more rational choice. The results provide a more scientific and reasonable reference for emergency shelter selection under the influence of toxic gases.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Loss Prevention in The Process Industries","volume":"96 ","pages":"Article 105641"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Loss Prevention in The Process Industries","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950423025000993","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During a disaster, shelters can effectively reduce the threat to human life safety and facilitate the rescue operations conducted by emergency responders. Hence, the rationality of emergency shelter site selection directly affects evacuation efficiency and rescue effectiveness. This study evaluates the suitability of emergency shelter site selection in the context of accidents in chemical industry parks. To address the limitations of existing evaluation models in accounting for toxic gas impacts, a risk function was introduced to refine the regret theory, enabling a more accurate reflection of toxic gas effects on shelter layout. Using an improved CTM model with the Tianjin Port area in China as the study site, evacuation route, time, and speed data were obtained and used as input values to calculate the utility and regret values for selecting different shelters. Given the significant impact of wind direction on gas dispersion, simulations, and evaluations were conducted with various wind direction parameters. The evaluation results indicate that under the influence of toxic gases, with ENE and NE wind directions, Shelter S4, located northwest of the Tianjin Port area, has the lowest regret value, with a regret value difference of 42.42 %–82.35 % compared to other location options. Under SE wind direction, the shelter with the lowest regret value is Shelter S2, located southeast of the Tianjin Port area. The regret value differences among the other nearby shelters are insignificant, with the maximum difference within 31 %. Overall, setting the shelter at location S4 is a more rational choice. The results provide a more scientific and reasonable reference for emergency shelter selection under the influence of toxic gases.
基于改进的后悔理论的有毒气体泄漏事故应急避难所选址适宜性评估
在发生灾害时,避难所可以有效地减少对人类生命安全的威胁,并为应急人员开展救援行动提供便利。因此,应急避难场所选址的合理性直接影响疏散效率和救援效果。本研究以化工园区事故为背景,评估应急避难场所选址的适宜性。为了解决现有评估模型在考虑有毒气体影响方面的局限性,引入了风险函数来完善后悔理论,从而更准确地反映有毒气体对避难所布局的影响。采用改进的CTM模型,以中国天津港地区为研究点,获得疏散路线、时间和速度数据,并将其作为输入值,计算选择不同避难场所的效用值和后悔值。考虑到风向对气体扩散的重要影响,采用不同的风向参数进行了模拟和评价。评价结果表明,在有毒气体影响下,在ENE和NE风向下,位于天津港西北方向的S4避难点的后悔值最低,与其他位置的后悔值差为42.42% ~ 82.35%。东南风向下,后悔值最低的避难所为位于天津港东南方向的避难所S2。附近其他避难所的后悔值差异不显著,最大差异在31%以内。总的来说,将避难所设置在S4位置是一个更合理的选择。研究结果为有毒气体影响下应急避难场所的选择提供了更为科学合理的参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
226
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: The broad scope of the journal is process safety. Process safety is defined as the prevention and mitigation of process-related injuries and damage arising from process incidents involving fire, explosion and toxic release. Such undesired events occur in the process industries during the use, storage, manufacture, handling, and transportation of highly hazardous chemicals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信