Prevention of domino effect: From active and passive strategies to inherently safer design

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Volumn 139, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 209-219

  Cozzani, Valerio ^a   Tugnoli, Alessandro ^a   Salzano, Ernesto ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b CNR   (Italy)

Author keywords

Domino effect; Escalation inherent safety; Inherently safer design; Major accident hazards; Safety distances

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; PLANT LAYOUT; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

DOMINO EFFECT; ESCALATION INHERENT SAFETY; INHERENTLY SAFER DESIGN; MAJOR ACCIDENT HAZARDS; SAFETY DISTANCES;

EXPLOSIONS;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; EXPLOSIONS; PLANT LAYOUT; REGULATORY COMPLIANCE;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; PROCESSING; SAFETY; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

ACCIDENT; ACCIDENT PREVENTION; ARTICLE; EXPLOSION; FIRE; FIRE PROTECTION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; ACCIDENTS, OCCUPATIONAL; CHEMICAL INDUSTRY; EXPLOSIONS; FIRES; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PRESSURE; SAFETY;

EID: 33845381276     PISSN: 03043894     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.06.041     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Hendershot D.C. Inherently safer chemical process design. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 10 (1997) 151
2. Edwards D. Are we too safe for inherent safety?. Trans. IChemE, Part B: Process Safety Environ. Protect. 81 (2003) 399
3. Kletz T.A. Inherently safer design-its scope and future. Trans. IChemE, Part B: Process Safety Environ. Protect. 81 (2003) 401
4. Mecklenburgh J.C. Process Plant Layout (1985), George Goodwin, London
5. Edwards D.W., and Lawrence D. Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process routes: is there a relation between plant cost and inherent safety?. Trans. IChemE, Part B: Process Safety Environ. Protect. 71 (1993) 252
6. Heikkilä A., and Hurme M. Equipment safety as part of inherent safety index for preliminary process design. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in Process Industries. Barcelona (1998)
7. Koller G., Fischer U., and Hungerbuhler K. Assessing safety, health, and environmental impact early during process development. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 (2000) 960
8. Khan F.I., Husain T., and Abbasi S.A. Safety weighted hazard index (SweHI): a new user-friendly tool for swift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation in chemical process industries. Trans. IChemE 79B (2001) 65
9. Palaniappan C., Srinivasan R., and Tan R. Expert system for the design of inherently safer processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41 (2002) 6698
10. Khan F.I., Sadiq R., and Amyotte P.R. Evaluation of available indices for inherently safer design options. Process Safety Prog. 22 (2003) 83
11. Cozzani V., Gubinelli G., and Salzano E. Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events. J. Hazard. Mater. 129 (2006) 1
12. Carrithers G.W., Dowell III A.M., and Hendershot D.C. It's never too late for inherent safety. Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop on Process Safety Management and Inherently Safer Processes. Orlando, FL (1996), American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York
13. Khan F.I., and Amyotte P.R. Inherent safety in offshore oil and gas activities: a review of the present status and future directions. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 15 (2002) 279
14. Baker W.E., Cox P.A., Westine P.S., and Kulesz J.J. Explosion Hazards and Evaluation (1983), Elsevier, Amsterdam
15. CCPS. Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires and BLEVEs, AIChE Edition (1994), CCPS, New York
16. Lees F.P. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. II ed. (1996), Butterworths/Heinemann, Oxford
17. Salzano E., and Cozzani V. Blast wave damage to process equipment as a trigger of domino effects. Proceedings of the 19th Annual CCPS International Conference. AIChE, New York (2004) 101
18. Cozzani V., Gubinelli G., and Salzano E. Criteria for the escalation of fires and explosions. Proceedings of the Seventh Process Plant Safety Symposium. AIChE, New York (2005) 225
19. Cozzani V., and Salzano E. Threshold values for domino effects caused by blast wave interaction with process equipment. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 17 (2004) 437
20. Salzano E., and Cozzani V. A fuzzy set analysis to estimate loss intensity following blast wave interaction with process equipment. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 19 (2006) 343
21. Van den Berg A.C. The multi-energy method-a framework for vapor cloud explosion blast prediction. J. Hazard. Mater. 12 (1985) 1
22. Tang M.J., and Baker Q.A. A new set of blast curves from vapour cloud explosion. Process Safety Prog. 18 (1999) 235
23. Uijt de Haag P.A.M., and Ale B.J.M. Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment (Purple Book) (1999), Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The Hague, The Netherlands
24. Nolan D.P. Handbook of Fire and Explosion Protection Engineering Principles for Oil, Gas, Chemical and Related Facilities (1996), Noyes Publications, New Jersey
25. In: Cote A.E. (Ed). Fire Protection Handbook. 19th ed. (2003), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA
26. Salzano E., Picozzi B., Vaccaro S., and Ciambelli P. The hazard of pressure tanks involved in fires. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42 (2003) 1804
27. Van Den Bosh C.J.H., and Weterings R.A.P.M. Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects (Yellow Book) (1997), Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The Hague, The Netherlands
28. Shirvill L.C. Efficacy of water spray protection against propane and butane jet fires impinging on LPG storage tanks. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 17 (2004) 111
29. Roberts T.A. Directed deluge systems designs and determination of the effectiveness of the currently recommended minimum deluge rate for the protection of LPG tanks. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 17 (2004) 103
30. Roberts T.A. Linkage of a known level of LPG tank surface water coverage to the degree of jet fire protection provided. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 17 (2004) 169
31. Chamberlain G.A. Developments in design methods for predicting thermal radiation from flares. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 65 (1987) 299
32. CCCPS. Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis. II ed. (2000), AIChE, New York
33. Forcier T., and Zalosh R. External pressures generated by vented gas and dust explosions. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 13 (2000) 411
34. Eggen J.B.M. GAME: development of guidance for the application of the multi-energy method, health and safety executive. Contract Res. Rep. 202 (1998)
35. NFPA 68, Guide for Venting of Deflagrations (2002), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA
36. NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Protection Systems (1997), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA
37. Baum M.R. The velocity of missiles generated by the disintegration of gas pressurised vessel and pipes. J. Pressure Vessels Techn. 106 (1984) 362
38. Gubinelli G., Zanelli S., and Cozzani V. A simplified model for the assessment of the impact probability of fragments. J. Hazard. Mater. 116 (2004) 175
39. P.L. Holden, A.B. Reeves, Fragment hazards from failures of pressurised liquefied gas vessels, IChemE Symposium Series No. 93, 1985, p. 205.
40. W.E. Westin, Summary of ruptured tank cars involved in past accidents, Report No. RA-01-2-7, Railroad Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project, Chicago, IL, 1971.