Investigation on the Key Response Factors of Action Plan in Underground Pipeline Emergency Scenario
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 142 ( 2016 ) 161 – 165 Sustainable Development of Civil, Urban and Transportation Engineering Conference Investigation on the Key Response Factors of Action Plan in Underground Pipeline Emergency Scenario Yeong-Nain Sheena, Her-Yung Wanga, Chun-Hung Chena,* aDepartment of Civil Engineering, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, 8867,Taiwan Abstract Kaohsiung gas explosion caused serious fatalities, making this the largest petrochemical catastrophe in Taiwan’s history. It raises a concern how we can make better /best decision to reduce the fatalities and property loss in such little time. Through the literature, little research has been done in evaluating the decision making. The paper mainly focuses on what are the key response factors in terms of action plan. This paper adopted Delphi method in order to gain the wisdoms of experts so as to formulate the important decision-making factors. Firstly, the Delphi method was conducted to gain consensus of experts out of three categories. Through the back and forth procedure, we modified the factors based on the opinion of experts. Secondly, after confirming the 13 factors, questionnaire issued to the experts to gain their individual’s values. Finally, after analyzing the questionnaire, the result shows that ‘Jet water to disperse the gas’ is the top priority. © 20162016 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by Elsevierby Elsevier Ltd. LtdThis. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (Peerhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-review under responsibility of the organizing). committee of CUTE 2016. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016 Keywords: Key response factors; Delphi method; underground pipeline incident; 1. Introduction A series of gas explosions occurred in the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung on 31 July 2014. Fig. 1 shows the location and explosion area where the incident occurred. Prior to the incident happened, a smell of gas and white smoke came out of manholes near Kaisyuan 3rd Road and Ersheng 1st Road in Cianjhen District. Residents near by the scene reported the odd smell to Kaohsiung Fire Department at 8:46 p.m. Fire fighters, including those from nearby Tainan City, have rushed to the scene [1]. They sprayed water on the roads to lower the gas concentration and also secured the nearby area to prohibit any heat source. In order to find out leak source, Kaohsiung Fire * Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-7-3814526~5236; fax:+886-7-3961294. E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CUTE 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.02.027 162 Yeong-Nain Sheen et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 ( 2016 ) 161 – 165 Department required Kaohsiung Public Works Bureau to provide pipeline map data. Staff in Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and experts of Southern District Disaster Response Team went to scene sampling at 9:30 p.m. The leak gas was sampled and confirmed Alkenes not until 11:50 p.m. The explosions occurred later at 11:56 p.m. on Yisin Road, Ersheng Road, Sanduo Road and Guanghua Road. The blasts, which were triggered by underground gas leaks, tore trenches through main roads, overturned cars and trucks[2]. Fig. 2 shows the blasts spilt roads in two and overturned vehicles. About 6km of road length were damaged. Images of the scene showed major fires, upturned vehicles, bodies covered in debris [3]. Among the many casualties from the blasts were members of Kaohsiung’s police and fire departments [4]. During the incident, 32 people were killed and 321 others were injured. Fig. 1. The location and explosion area of the incident Fig. 2. The blasts spilt roads in two and overturned vehicles . Several points have raised and criticized by the public: x The pipeline map data was established by Kaohsiung Public Works Bureau failed to provide the exact data. x Three pipeline companies claimed nothing unusual in its pipeline and refused to shut down the pipeline when civilian reported odd smell to 119. x The government was eager to find out the leak source so as to take proper procedure rather than evacuating in the first time. The question now arises. How can we make better /best decision in such little time to reduce the fatalities and property loss? The purpose of this paper is to explore selecting the response factors in such incident. It is hoped that the findings can contribute to successful rescue and thus reduce casualties. 2. Relevant incidents Through the literature, there are also several devastating pipeline gas explosion cases [5-7]. On November 19, 1984, in Mexico City, a ruptured LPG pipeline released large amounts of liquefied petroleum gas. The gas continued leaking and formed vapor cloud and eventually caused a powerful explosion. The explosion killed 550 people and injured 221. The 1992 explosion in Guadalajara, Mexico's second largest city, took place on April 22, 1992. Due to the erosion of oil pipeline, large amounts of gasoline vapor spread through sewer system. Over four hours, numerous gasoline explosions occurred in the sewer system and destroyed 8 kilometers of streets in the downtown. A large area gas explosion in metropolitan city was first seen. Officially, 206 people were killed; nearly 500 injured. The Qingdao oil pipeline explosion occurred on 22 November 2013. An oil pipe leaked at 2:40 a.m. The underground Yeong-Nain Sheen et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 ( 2016 ) 161 – 165 163 pipeline ruptured and crude oil leaked onto a street. Before the pipeline was shut down at 3:15 a.m., oil had infiltrated into underground utility pipes. Eventually it caught fire and exploded. The blast killed at least 62 people. 3. Methodology 3.1. Scope of the research Although the cases of gas explosion are quite a few, the relevant research mainly from prevention perspective to reduce the risk, thus prevent the incident happening again in the future. However, little research has been done from rescue perspective. While taking proper decision making in during-incident phase is also crucial in order to reduce casualties and property loss. The scope of this study focus on what are the key response factors of action plan should be taken into consideration. 3.2. Delphi method The objective is to develop a technique to obtain the most reliable consensus of experts. Since there are no relevant study has been done before, this research applied Delphi method to gain the key response factors. The main reason is that Delphi method has proven a useful tool in decision making. It originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts [8,9]. It uses the qualitative research methods to quantify the group consensus. The purpose of the paper is to gain the wisdom of experts to reach consensus. It is a group decision mechanism requiring qualified experts who have deep understanding of the issues [10]. Therefore, one of the most critical requirements is the selection of qualified experts. This paper primarily based guidelines initially developed by Delbecq et al [11]. It is a small group approach. Delbecq et al. suggested the ideal group size is 5-7 individuals. A Delphi study does not depend on many samples to reflect any population. Moreover, it is based on a structured group of individuals are more accurate than those from unstructured groups [12]. 3.3. Data collection and analysis method The Delphi questionnaires will be mainly administered using e-mail and fax. Schmidt et al. [13] outlined the procedure for “ranking-type’’. This will involve three general steps: (1) brainstorming for important factors; (2) narrowing down the original list to the most important ones; and (3) ranking the list of important factors. Questionnaire was adopted a five-point Likert scale. In questionnaire 1 phase, experts were treated as individuals, not panels. The questionnaire is blank so they were free to write down important factors based on their profession in view of “Action plan”. Since the experts were anonymous, the experts were encouraged to write down their opinions based on their knowledge and experience. After the first round of expert questionnaires were collected, unlike other questionnaire, the statistics began. After each round, the statistics data of the experts’ group opinions from the previous round would be provided. Thus, experts were encouraged to revise their earlier answers in view of the replies of other members so as to collect the key response factors. 4. Results and discussions In this case, three relevant categories of experts who have important and valuable knowledge/experience in this field were selected. The selection of qualification showed in Table 1. Through the Delphi method, the gap of the answers would decrease and the solution would focus. Experts rated the most important factors to least from 5 points to 1 point. The higher the score indicate that the experts agree the factor is more important. While the mean scores of factor is less than 3 points, indicating the impact factor is less important. It should be removed. If the coefficient of variation is less than 0.3, indicating that experts have reached a high degree of consensus; coefficient of variation between 0.3 to 0.5, indicating that the results can be acceptable; if the coefficient of variation is greater than 0.5, indicating that the results are inconsistent. The factor needs to be 164 Yeong-Nain Sheen et al. / Procedia Engineering 142 ( 2016 ) 161 – 165 eliminated.