All Issue

2015 Vol.17, Issue 2 Preview Page
The effect of a risk factor on quantitative risk assessment in railway tunnel

철도터널에서 위험인자가 정량적 위험도 평가에 미치는 영향

Ji-Oh Yoo1*
,
Jin-Su Kim2
,
Dong-Ho Rie3
,
Hyun-Jun Shin4
유 지오1*
,
김 진수2
,
이 동호3
,
신 현준4
1Professor, Dep. of Automotive Engineering, Shin-Han University
2Graduate School, Incheon National University
3Fire Disaster Prevention Research Center, Incheon National University
4Senior Research Fellow, Fire Research Center, Korea Institute of Construction Technology
1신한대학교 자동차공학과 교수
2인천대학교 대학원
3인천대학교 소방방재연구센터
4한국건설기술연구원, 선임연구위원
*교신저자. *Corresponding Author. 
31 March 2015. pp. 117-125
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) of railway is to create a variety of scenario and to quantify the degree of risk by a result of the product of accident frequency and accident. Quantitative risk Assessment is affected by various factors such as tunnel specifications, characteristics of the fire, and relation of smoke control and evacuation direction. So in this study, it is conducted that how the way of smoke control and the relation of smoke control and evacuation direction affect quantitative risk assessment with variables (the tunnel length (2, 3, 4, 5, 6 km) and the slope (5, 15, 25‰)). As the result, in a train fire at the double track tunnel (Area = 97 m2), it is most efficient to evacuate to the opposite direction of smoke control regardless of the location of train in train fire. In addition, under the same condition, index risk in mechanical ventilation up to 1/10.

Keywords
Railway tunnel
Quantitative risk assesment
Smoke control & evacuation direction

철도터널에 대한 정량적 위험도 평가는 다양한 시나리오를 작성하고 사고발생빈도 및 사고의 결과의 곱으로 위험도를 정량화하는 것이다. 정량적 위험도 평가는 터널제원, 화재특성, 제연방법, 제연과 대피방향의 관계 등 다양한 인자에 의해서 영향을 받는다. 이에 본 연구에서는 터널연장(2, 3, 4, 5, 6 km) 및 경사도(5, 15, 25‰)를 변수로 하여 제연방법 및 제연과 대피방향의 관계가 정량적 위험도 평가에 미치는 영향을 검토하였다. 이 결과로 복선터널 단면(단면적 97 m2)에서는 열차화재시 열차중 화재차량의 위치와 무관하게 제연반대방향으로 대피하는 것이 가장 효과적인 것으로 나타났다. 또한 이와 같은 조건에서 기계환기시 위험도지수가 자연환기 보다 약 1/10까지 감소하는 것으로 평가되었다.

키워드
철도터널
정량적 위험도 평가
제연과 대피방향
References
1
1.IES. (2004), “SIMULEX User Mannual”, UK.
2
2.Kees Both. (2004), “Present-day design fire scenarios and comparison with test results and real fires: structures & equipment.”, 1st Int. Sym. Proc. Safe & Reliable Tunnels. Innovative European Achievements, Praque, p. 73.
3
3.Korea Railroad Research Institute. (2014), “Quantitative risk assessment manual draft”, South Korea.
4
4.Korea Transportation Safety Authority. (2013), “Railway accident statistics”, South Korea.
5
5.Ministry of Land. (2013), “Railway facilities Safety Technical standards”, South Korea.
6
6.SFPE. (2003), “Emergency movement”, Chapter 3-14.
7
7.Tunnelling and Underground Space Association. (2009), “Ho-nam railway vehicle fire intensity and quantitative risk assessment (QRA)”, South Korea.
8
8.Yoo, J.O., Nam, C.H.,  Jo, H.J., Kim, J.W. (2010), “A study on quantitative risk assessment for railway tunnel fire”, Tunneling Technology, Vol. 12, No. 4.
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Tunneling and Underground Space Association
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국터널지하공간학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Korean Tunnelling and Underground Space Association
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국터널지하공간학회 논문집
  • Volume : 17
  • No :2
  • Pages :117-125
  • Received Date : 2015-02-07
  • Revised Date : 2015-02-16
  • Accepted Date : 2015-02-25
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.9711/KTAJ.2015.17.2.117
Journal Informaiton Journal of Korean Tunnelling and Underground Space Association Journal of Korean Tunnelling and Underground Space Association
Online Submission & Review System
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close