4.7 Article

Dynamics Simulation for Process Risk Evolution on the Bunker Operation of an LNG-fueled Vessel with Catastrophe Mathematical Models

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse7090299

关键词

liquefied nature gas-fueled vessels (LNGFV); system dynamics; risk assessment; process safety; evolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquefied nature gas (LNG) is a green energy. LNG-fueled vessels are extremely complex engineering systems. In view of the inherent hazardous properties of LNG fuel, LNG fueling is not only an important part, but it is also full of high risks in the operation of LNG-fueled vessels (LNGFVs). Therefore, it is necessary to study the risk factors, and the intrinsic relationship among them between the LNG and the vessel, and to simulate the system dynamics in the process of LNGFV operation. During the process of fueling of LNGFV, at every moment the vessel interacts with the energy and information of the surrounding environment. First, the impact of the three interactions of the fueling operation process, ship factors, and environmental factors were analyzed on the risk of fueling operation, and a complete node system was proposed as to the complex system dynamics mode. Second, by analyzing the boundary conditions of the system, the relationship of factors was established via the tools of system dynamics (SD). Based on the catastrophe theory (CA), the dynamics model for the fueling of LNG is set up to study the system's risk mutation phenomenon. Third, combined with the simulation results of the case analysis, the risk evolution mode of the LNGFV during the fueling process was obtained, and constructive opinions were put forward for improving the safe fueling of the LNGFV. Application examples show that formal description of risk emergence and transition is a prerequisite for the quantitative analysis of the risk evolution mode. In order to prevent accidents, the coupling synchronization of risk emergence should be weakened, and meanwhile risk control should be implemented.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据