Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.28, No.3, 656-666, 2011
Optimal layout of additional facilities for minimization of domino effects based on worst-case scenarios
Accidents involving domino effects are more serious than other type of accidents. Although there have been studies on such accidents, it is still difficult to examine the actual factors and causes since the domino effect is influenced nonlinearly by factors involving flame, overpressure, and flying objects. We considered the case of adding new facilities to an existing system in a given site. The layout of new facilities suggests positions that minimize the domino effects, based on nonlinear optimization taking domino factors into account. We quantitatively calculated the domino risk of each facility through the concept of combined domino factors (flame, overpressure, and missile). Also, we identified variations of domino damage extent of the target system through comparison of the impacts of domino effect when additional facilities were installed. Simulated annealing was adopted for searching optimal positions. As a case study, we applied the proposed method to the case of adding DME storage tanks in the existing LPG charging facilities. The presented framework of the quantitative assessment of domino risk and safety standard for the layout of additional facilities would be useful for proper layout design for improved accident prevention.
[References]
  1. Khan FI, Abbasi SA, Process Saf. Prog., 17(2), 107, 1998
  2. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA, J. Hazard. Mater., 141(3), 489, 2007
  3. Park K, Mannan MS, Jo YD, Kim JY, Keren N, Wang Y, J. Hazard. Mater., A137, 62, 2006
  4. Lee JY, Kim HS, Yoon ES, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 39(7), 731, 2006
  5. Pietersen CM, J. Hazard. Mater., 20, 85, 1988
  6. Patsiatzis DI, Knight G, Papageorgiou LG, Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 82(5), 579, 2004
  7. Tugnoli A, Khan F, Amyotte P, Cozzani V, J. Hazard. Mater., 160(1), 110, 2008
  8. CCPS, Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, CCPS of the AIChE, Wiley, 1999
  9. Cozzani V, Gubinelli G, Salzano E, J. Hazard. Mater., A129, 1, 2006
  10. The Mathworks, Global Optimization Toolbox 3, 2004
  11. MHIDAS, Major Hazard Incident Data Service, Health and Safety Executive, 2001
  12. Koo JS, Kim S, Kim H, Yoon ES, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26, 262, 2009
  13. A Chemical Engineering Progress, Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, AIChE, 1987
  14. Cozzani V, Gubinelli G, Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Zanelli S, J. Hazard. Mater., A207, 14, 2005
  15. Cozzani V, Tugnoli A, J. Hazard. Mater., A139, 209, 2007
  16. TNO, Methods for the Calculation of the Physical Effects, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, 1996
  17. Holden PL, Reeves AB, Ins. Chem. Eng. Symposium., 93, 1985
  18. Birk AM, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 9(2), 173, 1996
  19. CCPS, Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety, CCPS of the AIChE, Wiley, 1993