Volume 20, Issue 1 (2023)
ioh 2023, 20(1): 278-292 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Abbasi Kharajou B, Rafiei M, Ahmadi H, moradi hanifi S. Quantitative evaluation of the domino effects of the explosion caused by the CNG fuel station using consequence modeling and GIS. ioh 2023; 20 (1) :278-292
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3487-en.html
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3487-en.html
Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences , sabermoradi22@yahoo.com
Abstract: (856 Views)
Abstract
Background and aims: compressed natural gas stations are one of the most critical and dangerous urban land uses and should be highly regarded. The domino effects of accidents are essential concepts in urban areas. The present study aims to analyze explosive domino accidents at compressed natural gas stations (CNG). Modeling the consequence in fuel stations can minimize the likelihood of a crisis and losses.
Methods: This study was conducted by Process Hazard Analysis System Tools (PHAST), which evaluates the effects of risks on compressed natural gas stations. Methane gas was used as fuel material in this study. This Modeling was carried out by determining the scenario and explosion model based on the atmospheric parameters, and adjacent land uses. Domino effects are analyzed in two aspects, physical and demographic, in three stages: consequence modeling, risk analysis by the QRA model, and overlapping the explosion wave using the geographical information system.
Results: The results showed that the explosion wave expanded up to 500 and the most damage to individuals and equipment occurred within 140 meters, so those present in the area will suffer great damage due to the blast wave pressure. There is no serious threat in the more than 100 meters from the explosion wave, and the safety radius is 500 meters. Risk assessment showed that social risk was unacceptable and that measures should be taken to reduce risk. The use of GIS software was very effective in the explosion.
Conclusion: As the results, it is inferred that analyzing cascade accidents at compressed natural gas stations before the crisis can reduce physical and demographic losses. Applying the PHAST and GIS model helped determine the explosive radius of the estimation of adjacent land uses and the number of vulnerable people.
Background and aims: compressed natural gas stations are one of the most critical and dangerous urban land uses and should be highly regarded. The domino effects of accidents are essential concepts in urban areas. The present study aims to analyze explosive domino accidents at compressed natural gas stations (CNG). Modeling the consequence in fuel stations can minimize the likelihood of a crisis and losses.
Methods: This study was conducted by Process Hazard Analysis System Tools (PHAST), which evaluates the effects of risks on compressed natural gas stations. Methane gas was used as fuel material in this study. This Modeling was carried out by determining the scenario and explosion model based on the atmospheric parameters, and adjacent land uses. Domino effects are analyzed in two aspects, physical and demographic, in three stages: consequence modeling, risk analysis by the QRA model, and overlapping the explosion wave using the geographical information system.
Results: The results showed that the explosion wave expanded up to 500 and the most damage to individuals and equipment occurred within 140 meters, so those present in the area will suffer great damage due to the blast wave pressure. There is no serious threat in the more than 100 meters from the explosion wave, and the safety radius is 500 meters. Risk assessment showed that social risk was unacceptable and that measures should be taken to reduce risk. The use of GIS software was very effective in the explosion.
Conclusion: As the results, it is inferred that analyzing cascade accidents at compressed natural gas stations before the crisis can reduce physical and demographic losses. Applying the PHAST and GIS model helped determine the explosive radius of the estimation of adjacent land uses and the number of vulnerable people.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Safety
Received: 2023/02/5 | Accepted: 2023/05/31 | Published: 2023/03/30
Received: 2023/02/5 | Accepted: 2023/05/31 | Published: 2023/03/30
References
1. C. Chen, G. Reniers, and N. Khakzad, "A thorough classification and discussion of approaches for modeling and managing domino effects in the process industries," Saf. Sci., vol. 125, p. 104618, 2020. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104618]
2. F. Celano and M. Dolšek, "Fatality risk estimation for industrialized urban areas considering multi-hazard domino effects triggered by earthquakes," Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 206, p. 107287, 2021. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2020.107287]
3. R. M. Darbra, A. Palacios, and J. Casal, "Domino effect in chemical accidents: Main features and accident sequences," J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 183, no. 1-3, pp. 565-573, 2010. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.061] [PMID]
4. F. Kadri, E. Chatelet, and P. Lallement, "The Assessment of Risk Caused by Fire and Explosion in Chemical Process Industry: A Domino Effect-Based Study," J. Risk Anal. Cris. Response, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 66, 2013. [DOI:10.2991/jrarc.2013.3.2.1]
5. Z. Jahanbani, F. Sereshki, M. Ataei, and K. Ghanbari, "Risk Assessment of Fire by using Fuzzy Fault Tree Analysis Case study: Eastern Alborz Coal Mines," Iran Occup. Heal., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 46-57, 2017.
6. DNV GL, "Process hazard analysis / consequence analysis - Phast - Software - DNV GL," 2017. https://www.dnvgl.com/services/process-hazard-analysis-phast-1675 (accessed May 07, 2018).
7. A. B. de Haag PU, Guideline for Quantitative Risk Assessment (The Purplebook), Loss Preve. Elsevier, 2001. Accessed: Feb. 02, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283632721_Guideline_for_quantitative_risk_assessment_in_the_Netherlands.
8. S. Lewis, "Risk Criteria - When is low enough good enough?," Risktec Solut. Limited, http//www. risktec. co. uk/media/43520/risk criteria when low enough good enough, no. June, p. 8, 2007, [Online]. Available: http://www.risktec.co.uk/media/43520/risk criteria - when is low enough good enough - saudi.pdf
9. K. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Qian, M. Li, and P. Huang, "Comparative Study on Blast Wave Propagation of Natural Gas Vapor Cloud Explosions in Open Space Based on a Full-Scale Experiment and PHAST," Energy and Fuels, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 6143-6152, Jul. 2016. [DOI:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01293]
10. B. Abdolhamidzadeh, T. Abbasi, D. Rashtchian, and S. A. Abbasi, "Corrigendum to A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry [J. Hazard. Mater. 182, (2010), 416-426]," J. Hazard. Mater., vol. 184, no. 1-3, p. 877, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.08.063. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.08.063] [PMID]
11. G. Antonioni, G. Spadoni, V. Cozzani, C. Dondi, and D. Egidi, "Quantitative assessment of domino effect in an extended industrial area," Safety, Reliab. Risk Anal. Theory, Methods Appl. - Proc. Jt. ESREL SRA-Europe Conf., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 2397-2404, 2009.
12. D. Jiang, X. H. Pan, M. Hua, A. Mébarki, and J. C. Jiang, "Assessment of tanks vulnerability and domino effect analysis in chemical storage plants," J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 60, pp. 174-182, 2019. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.04.016]
13. D. Y. Gonzva M, Barroca B, Gautier P-É, "Modeling disruptions causing domino effects in urban guided transport systems faced by flood hazards," Nat. hazards, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 183-201, 2017. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-016-2680-7]
14. S. Cincotta, N. Khakzad, V. Cozzani, and G. Reniers, "Resilience-based optimal firefighting to prevent domino effects in process plants," J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 58, pp. 82-89, 2019. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.02.004]
15. R. Bahmani, M. Pouyakyan, S. Khodakarim, H. Bidel, and A. Salehi, "Risk Assessment and Consequence Analysis of Fire and Explosion in a Vinyl Chloride Monomer Tank by PHAST," J. Saf. Promot. Inj. Prev., vol. 8, no. 4, 2021.
16. M. M. Aliabadi, H. Ramezani, and O. Kalatpour, "Quantitative Risk Assessment of Condensate Storage Tank, Considering Domino Effects," J. Heal. Saf. Work, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 204-221, 2022.
17. F. I. Khan and S. A. Abbasi, "Techniques and methodologies for risk analysis in chemical process industries," J. loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 261-277, 1998. [DOI:10.1016/S0950-4230(97)00051-X]
18. F. Khan, S. Rathnayaka, and S. Ahmed, "Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future," Process Saf. Environ. Prot., vol. 98, pp. 116-147, 2015, [DOI:10.1016/j.psep.2015.07.005]
19. M. Parvini and A. Kordrostami, "Consequence modeling of explosion at Azad-Shahr CNG refueling station," J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 47-54, 2014, [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2014.04.007]
20. M. Pouyakian, F. Laal, M. J. Jafari, F. Nourai, and S. Kabir, "Fuzzy Bayesian estimation and consequence modeling of the domino effects of methanol storage tanks," Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 2509-2519, 2022. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2021.2011656] [PMID]
21. ESRI, "ArcGIS 10.2 Transforms GIS," 2013. http://www.esri.com/esri-news/arcuser/fall-2013/arcgis-102-transforms-gis (accessed Jan. 15, 2023).
22. B. Harati, A. Karimi, A. Askari, F. Dehghani, and A. Nasrollahi, "Modeling and evaluation of safety consequences of propylene oxide leakage, a petrochemical company," J. Heal. Saf. Work, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 199-209, 2018.
23. G. Reniers and V. Cozzani, "Features of Escalation Scenarios," in Domino Effects in the Process Industries: Modelling, Prevention and Managing, Elsevier, 2013, pp. 30-42. . [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-444-54323-3.00003-8]
24. S. Mannan, Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment And Control: Fourth Edition, vol. 1-2. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-397189-0.00122-1]
25. T. Aven and J. E. Vinnem, "On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry," Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 15-24, 2005. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.009]
26. V. Villa, N. Paltrinieri, F. Khan, and V. Cozzani, "Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry," Saf. Sci., vol. 89, pp. 77-93, Nov. 2016. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002]
27. J. E. Vinnem et al., "Risk modelling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations," J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 274-292, 2012. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.11.001]
28. E. Majidi, H. Zarei Mahmoud Abadi, H. Fattahi Bafghi, S. Ahmadi, M. Sharifi, and B. Moradi, "Identifying and assessment the health hazards of the petrochemical industry using the localized JHA method," Occup. Hyg. Heal. Promot., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 359-370, 2022. [DOI:10.18502/ohhp.v5i4.8462]
29. P. A. M. U. de Haag, B. J. M. Ale, and J. G. Post, "The 'Purple Book': guideline for quantitative risk assessment in the Netherlands," in Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, Elsevier, 2001, pp. 1429-1438. [DOI:10.1016/B978-044450699-3/50053-7]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
