Compressed natural gas bus safety: A quantitative risk assessment

被引:12
|
作者
Chamberlain, S [1 ]
Modarres, M [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Ctr Technol Risk Studies, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
关键词
CNG bus; CNG risk; fire risk; natural gas; risk comparison;
D O I
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00596.x
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
This study assesses the fire safety risks associated with compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle systems, comprising primarily a typical school bus and supporting fuel infrastructure. The study determines the sensitivity of the results to variations in component failure rates and consequences of fire events. The components and subsystems that contribute most to fire safety risk are determined. Finally, the results are compared to fire risks of the present generation of diesel-fueled school buses. Direct computation of the safety risks associated with diesel-powered vehicles is possible because these are mature technologies for which historical performance data are available. Because of limited experience, fatal accident data for CNG bus fleets are minimal. Therefore, this study uses the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) approach to model and predict fire safety risk of CNG buses. Generic failure data, engineering judgments, and assumptions are used in this study. This study predicts the mean fire fatality risk for typical CNG buses as approximately 0.23 fatalities per 100-million miles for all people involved, including bus passengers. The study estimates mean values of 0.16 fatalities per 100-million miles for bus passengers only. Based on historical data, diesel school bus mean fire fatality risk is 0.091 and 0.0007 per 100-million miles for all people and bus passengers, respectively. One can therefore conclude that CNG buses are more prone to fire fatality risk by 2.5 times that of diesel buses, with the bus passengers being more at risk by over two orders of magnitude. The study estimates a mean fire risk frequency of 2.2 x 10(-5) fatalities/bus per year. The 5% and 95% uncertainty bounds are 9.1 x 10(-6) and 4.0 x 10(-5), respectively. The risk result was found to be affected most by failure rates of pressure relief valves, CNG cylinders, and fuel piping.
引用
收藏
页码:377 / 387
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Individual Risk Quantitative Evaluation of Natural Gas Pipeline
    Zhang, Peng
    Huang, Yahui
    Peng, Xingyu
    Zhou, Lili
    Zhang, Hua
    PROCEEDINGS OF 2008 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RISK AND RELIABILITY MANAGEMENT, VOLS I AND II, 2008, : 587 - 590
  • [42] Quantitative risk analysis of natural gas exploration project
    Xu, Tao
    Li, Yun
    Tianranqi Gongye/Natural Gas Industry, 2000, 20 (02): : 98 - 100
  • [43] Development of a probabilistic mechanistic model for reliability assessment of gas cylinders in compressed natural gas vehicles
    Chamberlain, S.
    Chookah, M.
    Modarres, M.
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART O-JOURNAL OF RISK AND RELIABILITY, 2009, 223 (O4) : 289 - 299
  • [44] Quantitative risk assessment - An alternative approach to laser safety?
    Gardner, B
    Smith, PA
    IRPA9 - 1996 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON RADIATION PROTECTION / NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, PROCEEDINGS, VOL 3, 1996, : C669 - C671
  • [45] Towards Integrated Quantitative Security and Safety Risk Assessment
    Dobaj, Juergen
    Schmittner, Christoph
    Krisper, Michael
    Macher, Georg
    COMPUTER SAFETY, RELIABILITY, AND SECURITY, SAFECOMP 2019, 2019, 11699 : 102 - 116
  • [46] The application of quantitative risk assessment to microbial food safety
    Vose, DJ
    JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION, 1998, 61 (05) : 640 - 648
  • [47] Microbiological Quantitative Risk Assessment and Food Safety: An Update
    V. Giaccone
    M. Ferri
    Veterinary Research Communications, 2005, 29 : 101 - 106
  • [48] A semi-quantitative seafood safety risk assessment
    Sumner, J
    Ross, T
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY, 2002, 77 (1-2) : 55 - 59
  • [49] Quantitative assessment of building fire risk to life safety
    Chu Guanquan
    Sun Jinhua
    RISK ANALYSIS, 2008, 28 (03) : 615 - 626
  • [50] Comparative quantitative risk assessment of railway safety devices
    Goossens, LHJ
    Pietersen, CM
    den Heijer-Aerts, M
    SAFETY AND RELIABILITY, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2003, : 689 - 694