Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.39, No.5, 1158-1164, 2022
Safety distance analysis to prevent pipeline chain accidents
A framework for analyzing the safety distance between pipes is proposed in this study. To calculate the probability of a chain accident, the limit state function of reliability-based design and assessment is applied, and the reliability target is obtained using the risk criteria and the consequence model. As a result of analyzing these two results to calculate the safety distance between pipes, it is found that a greater safety distance should be kept in cases of the higher the pipe pressure, the larger impact force of the transport fluid, and the more dangerous fluid which has the greater consequence. The proposed study can serve as a systematic framework for recommending a safety distance, which allows for efficient and safe pipe management.
[References]
  1. Lilly MT, Ihekwoaba SC, Ogaji SOT, Probert SD, Appl. Energy, 84, 958, 2007
  2. Rimkevicius S, Kaliatka A, Valincius M, Dundulis G, Janulionis R, Grybenas A, Zutautaite I, Appl. Energy, 94, 22, 2012
  3. Gerbec M, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 95, 1154, 2010
  4. Dahire S, Tahir F, Jiao Y, Liu Y, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., 162, 30, 2018
  5. Zhang J, Zhang Z, Yu Z, Wu W, Chen Y, Proc. Bienn. Int. Pipeline Conf. IPC, 3, 1, 2014
  6. Bhardwaj U, Teixeira AP, Soares CG, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., 188, 104177, 2020
  7. Sklavounos S, Rigas F, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 19, 24, 2006
  8. Stephens MJ, A model for sizing high consequence areas associated with natural gas pipelines (GRI-00/0189), C-FER Technologies, Alberta (2000).
  9. Baker M Jr., Derivation of potential impact radius formulae for vapor cloud dispersion subject to 49 CFR 192 (No. TTO Number 14), United States, Office of Pipeline Safety (2005).
  10. Baker M Jr., Potential impact radius formulae for flammable gases other than natural gas subject to 49 CFR 192 (No. TTO Number 13), United States, Office of Pipeline Safety (2005).
  11. Stephens MJ, Nessim MA, PIRAMID technical reference manual, C-FER Technologies, Alberta (2001).
  12. CSA, Z662-07 Oil and gas pipeline systems, Canadian Standards Association, Canada (2007).
  13. ASME, Criteria for reliability-based design and assessment for ASME B31.8 CODE, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York (2012).
  14. Zhou J, Rothwell B, Nessim M, Zhou W, in 6th Int. Pipeline Conf. (2006).
  15. Mohsin R, Majid ZA, Yusof MZ, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 131, 53, 2014
  16. Russo P, Parisi F, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 148, 57, 2016
  17. Lee JH, Jo YD, Korean Chem. Eng. Res., 57, 225, 2019
  18. Eo C, Yoon S, Lee JM, J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., In press (2021).
  19. Chen Q, Nessim M, Reliability-based prevention of mechanical damage to pipelines (PR-244-9729), C-FER Technologies, Alberta (1999).
  20. Fuglem MK, Chen Q, Stephens MJ, Pipeline design for mechanical damage (PR-244-9910), C-FER Technologies, Alberta (2001).
  21. Nessim M, Zhou W, Guidelines for reliability based design and assessment of onshore natural gas pipelines (GRI-00/0189), C-FER Technologies, Alberta (2005).
  22. Nessim M, Zhou W, Zhou J, Rothwell B, J. Press. Vessel Technol. Trans. ASME, 131, 1, 2009
  23. KOR. KETEP, Final report on reliability-based design and assessment system development for buried high-pressure gas pipelines (2016-04 20162220100030), Korea (2019).