An integrated approach for fire and explosion consequence modelling
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Fire and explosion are accidents which potentially can occur in oil and gas processing facilities. While fire and explosion could occur as a consequence of each other, most published work has assessed fire and explosion separately, ignoring interactions between the two phenomena. The current study proposes a novel approach to model the entire sequences involved in a potential accident using liquid and gas release incidents as two test cases. The integrated scenario is modelled using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes FLACS and FDS. An integrated approach is adopted to analyse and represent the effects (injuries/death) of the accident. The proposed approach can be used in designing safety measures to minimize the adverse impacts of such accidents. It can also serve as an important tool to develop safety training to improve emergency preparedness plans.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk and Safety Analysis · Combustion and Detonation Processes · Wind and Air Flow Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. O.R. Hansen, M. Ichard, S.G. Davis, Validation of FLACS for vapour dispersion from LNG spills: Model Evaluation Protocol, Twelfth Annual Symposium, Mary Kay O’Connor Process Safety Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 27–28 October 2009, pp. 712–743.
2. Explosion modeling and analysis of BP Deepwater Horizon accident10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.024 ↗
3. J. Koo, H.S. Kim, W. So, K.H. Kim, E.S. Yoon, Safety assessment of LNG terminal focused on the consequence analysis of LNG spills, in: Proceeding of the 1st Annual Gas Processing Symposium, Doha, Qatar, 10–12 January 2009, pp. 325–311.10.1016/B978-0-444-53292-3.50040-7 ↗
4. Evaluating the potential for overpressures from the ignition of an LNG vapour cloud during offloading10.1016/j.jlp.2011.07.002 ↗
5. W.K. Kim, H.C. Salvesen, A study for prevention of unconfined vapour cloud explosion from spilled LNG confined in dike, CCPS Conference Proceedings, Jacksonville Florida, 2002.
6. L.R. Skarsbo, An experimental study of pool fires and validation of different CFD fire models, Master thesis, Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, 2011.
7. Field experiments on high expansion (HEX) foam application for controlling LNG pool fire10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.040 ↗
8. Key findings of liquefied natural gas pool fire outdoor tests with expansion foam application10.1021/ie101365a ↗
9. Numerical simulations of LNG vapour dispersion in Brayton fire training field tests with ANSYS CFX10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.06.090 ↗
10. HSE, CANVEY: a second report: a review of potential hazards from operations in the Canvey Island, HMSO, 1981.
11. The estimation of domino incident frequencies-an approach
12. M.L. Eknes, Escalation scenarios initiated by gas explosions on offshore installations – probabilistic cause and consequence modeling, PhD thesis, Faculty of Marine Technology, Department of Marine Structures, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1996.
13. DOMIFFECT (DOMIno Effect): user-friendly software for domino effect analysis10.1016/S1364-8152(98)00018-8 ↗
14. Escalation threshold in the assessment of domino accidental events10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.012 ↗
15. V. Cozzani, S. Zanelli, An approach to the assessment of domino accidents hazards in quantitative area risk analysis, in: Proceedings of the 10th Internationl Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2001.10.1016/B978-044450699-3/50040-9 ↗
16. Application of domino effect quantitative risk assessment to an extended industrial area10.1016/j.jlp.2009.02.012 ↗
17. Domino effects within a chemical cluster: a game-theoretical modeling approach by using Nash-equilibrium10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.12.113 ↗
18. Assael · 2010
19. M.A. Ramos, E.L. Droguett, M.R. Martins, H.P. Souza, Quantitative risk analysis and comparison for onshore and offshore LNG terminals: The Port of Suape – Brazil Case, in: Proceedings of ASME 30th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE2011), Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 19–24, 2011.10.1115/OMAE2011-50268 ↗
20. Woodward · 2010
21. Common lessons learned from an analysis of multiple case histories10.1002/prs.10446 ↗
22. Learning from the Piper Alpha accident: a post-mortem analysis of technical and organizational factors10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01071.x ↗
23. B. Achour, A. Hached, The incident at the Skikda plant: description and preliminary conclusion, LNG14, Session 1, DOHA, Qatar, Sonatrach, 21 March 2004.
24. The California Energy Commission, Liquefied natural gas safety, 2012, available from: 〈http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/safety.html〉.
25. CSB, BP Texas city refinery explosion and fire, Final Investigation Report, 2007, available from: 〈http://www.csb.gov/investigations/detail.aspx?SID=20&Type=2&pg=1&F_AccidentTypeId=12〉.
26. Modelling of BP Texas City refinery accident using dynamic risk assessment approach10.1016/j.psep.2010.01.004 ↗
27. Modelling of BP Texas City refinery incident10.1016/j.jlp.2007.04.037 ↗
28. M.P. Broadribb, Lessons from Texas City: a case history, in: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on the Center for Chemical Process Safety, Orlando, 2006.
29. The potential for vapor cloud explosions – lessons learned from the Buncefield accident10.1016/j.jlp.2010.06.011 ↗
30. HSE, Buncefield explosion mechanism, Prepared by the Steel Construction Institute for the Health and Safety Executive, 2009.
31. CSB, LPG fire at Vallero-McKee refinery, 2008, available from: 〈http://www.csb.gov/assets/document/CSBFinalReportValeroSunray.pdf〉.
32. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5) User's Guide, 2010, available from: 〈http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07053.pdf〉.
33. P. Middha, J. Melheim, FLACS pool live exercise, FLUG Meeting, Bergen, Norway, 5–6 May 2010, available from: 〈http://www2.gexcon.com/file.php?src=secure/flug/flug_meetings/Live_pool.pdf&session=800587656〉.
34. M. Ichard, O.R. Hansen, J.A. Melheim, Releases of pressurized liquefied gases: simulations of the Desert Tortoise test series with the CFD model FLACS, in: Proceedings of the 91st American Meteorological Society's Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2010.
35. Local grid refinement for improved description of leaks in industrial gas safety analysis10.1007/s007910050048 ↗
36. FLACS CFD air quality performance evaluation with KIT Fox, MUST, Prairie Grass, and EMU observations10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.041 ↗
37. BP, Deepwater, Horizon Accident Investigation Report, 2010, available from: 〈http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/gom_response/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/Deepwater_Horizon_Accident_Investigation_Report.pdf〉.
38. Gexcon, FLACS v9.1 User's Manual, 2010, available from: 〈www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9034902&contentId=7064891〉.
39. A CFD based approach to the correlation of maximum explosion overpressure to process plant parameters10.1016/j.jlp.2008.12.001 ↗
40. Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for blast wave predictions10.1016/j.jlp.2010.07.005 ↗
41. Crowl · 2001