收稿日期: 2016-05-03
网络出版日期: 2018-03-05
基金资助
国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)资助项目(2009AA064102)
Comprehensive risk assessment of ammonia desulfurization for coal-fired flue gas
Received date: 2016-05-03
Online published: 2018-03-05
针对燃煤烟气氨法脱硫的现状, 构建层次分析法-模糊评价法的综合风险指标体系. 该体系建立了层次递阶结构, 并根据各元素的标度值构造出判断矩阵, 求解各级因素的权重值. 评价体系有5个一级指标: 技术风险、环境风险、 安全风险、经济风险、管理风险. 各一级指标中含 4 个具体的分析对象, 根据专家投票的评分结果与构建的模糊评价矩阵, 结合评分集可计算量化的风险值. 评价结果显示, 氨法脱硫过程风险值为60.65, 属于``较高''风险行业. 技术问题面临着``高''风险, 可见该行业风险主要来自技术因素. 所得综合风险评价结果与实际情况较为符合, 对氨法脱硫理论与实践的探究均有一定的参考价值.
马振, 万皓 . 燃煤烟气氨法脱硫过程的综合风险评价[J]. 上海大学学报(自然科学版), 2018 , 24(1) : 92 -99 . DOI: 10.12066/j.issn.1007-2861.1779
According to the status of ammonia desulfurization for coal-fired flue gas, a comprehensive risk index system is established by combining a fuzzy assessment method with analytic hierarchical process (AHP) method. A hierarchical structure is established. Judgement matrix is constructed based on calibration of each element and calculated values of elements in all levels. The evaluation system contains five primary factors: technical risk, environmental risk, safety risk, benefit risk and management risk. There are four specific analytical objects for each index. According to the results of experts voting and fuzzy evaluation matrix, risk value can be calculated with reference to the score collection. The result shows that the risk value of ammonia desulfurization process is 60.65, and the risk value of the industry is a little high. Desulfurization technology is on a high risk level, in other words, the risk mainly comes from technology. The result of comprehensive risk assessment is in accordance with the status, and it has a reference value in studying the theory and practice of ammonia desulfurization.
| [1] | 张新民, 柴发合, 王淑兰 , 等. 中国酸雨研究现状[J]. 环境科学研究, 2010,23(5):527-532. |
| [2] | 廖正元, 黄春彦 . 可吸入颗粒物及其危害[J]. 化学教育, 2004,4(1):1-2. |
| [3] | 肖文德, 吴志泉 . 二氧化硫脱除与回收 [M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2001: 2-6. |
| [4] | 封志明, 殷国富 . 基于层次分析法的数控机床精度模糊评价[J]. 高技术通讯, 2014,24(2):183-188. |
| [5] | 伍慧, 李珏 . 公路桥梁施工安全风险评价与对策研究[J]. 北方交通, 2015(8):13-17. |
| [6] | 徐长香, 傅国光 . 氨法烟气脱硫技术综述[J]. 电力环境保护, 2005,21(2):17-21. |
| [7] | 邓雪, 李家铭, 曾浩健 , 等. 层次分析法权重计算方法分析及其应用研究[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2012,42(7):93-100. |
| [8] | 朱金伟, 于辰宏, 王凡 . 火电厂脱硫项目后评价指标权重确定方法研究[J]. 四川环境, 2011,30(3):63-66. |
| [9] | Chang A Y, Chen C J . Analysing critical factors of introducing RFID into an enterprise---an application of AHP and DEMATEL method[J]. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2011,18(7):323-334. |
| [10] | 林琳, 边疆, 宋莉 . 基于灰色层次分析法的火电厂脱硫工艺综合评价[J]. 仪器仪表用户, 2014,21(6):22-26. |
| [11] | Qian Y, Huang Z X, Yan Z G . Integrated assessment of environmental and economic performance of chemical products using analytic hierarchy process approach[J]. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2007,15(1):81-87. |
| [12] | 冯云飞, 孟繁博, 朱富斌 , 等. 基于灰色层次分析法的长输管道风险评价[J]. 油气储运, 2013,32(12):1289-1294. |
| [13] | 孙博, 肖汝诚 . 基于层次分析-模糊综合评价法的桥梁火灾风险评估体系[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2015,43(11):1621-1625. |
| [14] | 罗毅, 周创立 . 刘向杰. 多层次灰色关联分析法在火电机组运行评价中的应用[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2012,32(17):97-103. |
| [15] | 孙卫民, 薛建明, 王小明 . 脱硫工程项目后评估体系的研究[J]. 电力环境保护, 2009,25(1):62-64. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
