New approach to optimizing the facility siting and layout for fire and explosion scenarios

Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research

Volumn 50, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 3928-3937

  Jung, Seungho ^a   Ng, Dedy ^a   Diaz Ovalle, Christian ^b   Vazquez Roman, Richart ^b   Mannan, M Sam ^a  

^a Texas AandM University   (United States)

^b DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA QUÍMICA   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT SCENARIOS; CHEMICAL PROCESS PLANTS; CONFINEMENT EFFECTS; DOMINO EFFECTS; FIRE AND EXPLOSION; FLAME ACCELERATION SIMULATORS; FLAMMABLE GAS RELEASE; MIXED INTEGER NONLINEAR PROGRAM; NEW APPROACHES; OPTIMAL ALLOCATION; OPTIMAL LAYOUT; OPTIMAL LOCATIONS; OPTIMIZATION FORMULATIONS; OVER-PRESSURES; OVERALL COSTS; PROCESS PLANTS; PROPERTY DAMAGE; QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS; RISK CRITERIA; SEPARATION DISTANCES; STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE; STRUCTURAL DAMAGES; WEIGHTING FACTORS;

ACCIDENTS; EXPLOSIONS; FIRES; FLAMMABLE MATERIALS; INTEGER PROGRAMMING; LOCATION; OPTIMIZATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

EXPLOSIVES;

EID: 79953326560     PISSN: 08885885     EISSN: 15205045     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ie101367g     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Mannan, M. S.; West, H. H.; Berwanger, P. C. Lessons learned from recent incidents: Facility siting, atmospheric venting, and operator information systems J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2007, 20, 644-650 (Pubitemid 47376806)
2. Baker, J. A.; G. Erwin; S. Priest; P. V. Tebo; I. Rosenthal; F. L. Bowman; D. Hendershot; N. Leveson; L. D. Wilson; S. Gorton; Wiegmann, D. A. Report of the BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel; 2007, http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp-internet/globalbp/globalbp-uk-english/SP/ STAGING/local-assets/assets/pdfs/Baker-panel-report.pdf (Accessed January 20, 2010).
3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Phillips 66 Company Houston Chemical Complex Explosion and Fire: A Report to the President, U.S. Dept. Of Labor, Washington, DC (1990).
4. Dreux, M. S. Defending OSHA facility siting citations: Issues and recommendations Process Safety Prog. 2005, 24 (2) 77-78 (Pubitemid 40849708)
5. Management of Hazards Associated with Location of Process Plant Portable Buildings; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, 2007.
6. Management of Hazards Associated with Locations of Process Plant Permanent Buildings; American Petroleum Institute: Washington, DC, 2009.
7. Dow's Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, 7 th ed.; American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, 1994.
8. Patsiatzis, D. I.; Knight, G.; Papageorgiou, L. G. An MILP approach to safe process plant layout Trans. IChemE, Part A: Chem. Eng. Design 2004, 82 (A5) 579-586 (Pubitemid 38673160)
9. Realff, M. J.; Shah, N.; Pantelides, C. C. Simultaneous design, layout and scheduling of pipeless batch plants Comput. Chem. Eng. 1996, 20 (6-7) 869-883 (Pubitemid 126666074)
10. Penteado, F. D.; Ciric, A. R. An MINLP approach for safe process plant layout Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35 (4) 1354-1361 (Pubitemid 126460289)
11. Patsiatzis, D. I.; Papageorgiou, L. G. Optimal multi-floor process plant layout Comput. Chem. Eng. 2002, 26 (4-5) 575-583 (Pubitemid 34552711)
12. OÌ̂zyurt, D. B.; Realff, M. J. Geographic and Process Information for Chemcal Plant Layout Problems AIChE J. 1999, 45, 10
13. Georgiadis, M. C.; Schilling, G.; Rotstein, G. E.; Macchietto, S. A general mathematical programming approach for process plant layout Comput. Chem. Eng. 1999, 23 (7) 823-840 (Pubitemid 29292587)
14. Papageorgiou, L. G.; Rotstein, G. E. Continous-Domain mathematical models for optimal process plant layout Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1998, 37 (9) 3631-3639 (Pubitemid 29040444)
15. Xie, W.; Sahinidis, N. V., A branch-and-bound algorithm for the continuous facility layout problem. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2007.05.003.
16. Jung, S.; Ng, D.; Lee, J.-H.; Vazquez-Roman, R.; Mannan, M. S. An approach for risk reduction (methodology) based on optimizing the facility layout and siting in toxic gas release scenarios J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2010, 23, 139-148
17. AICHE/CCPS Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis; American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, 2007.
18. Mecklenburgh, J. C. Process plant layout; John Wiley & Sons: New York: 1985.
19. Vazquez-Roman, R.; Lee, J.-H.; Jung, S.; Mannan, M. S. Optimal facility layout under toxic release in process facilities: A stochastic approach Comput. Chem. Eng. 2009, 34 (1) 122-133
20. Crowl, D. A.; Louvar, J. F. Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall PTR: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
21. Cozzani, V.; Salzano, E. The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure: Part I. Probit models J. Hazard. Mater. 2004, 107 (3) 67-80 (Pubitemid 38456996)
22. Tugnoli, A.; Khan, F.; Amyotte, P.; Cozzani, V. Safety assessment in plant layout design using indexing approach: Implementing inherent safety perspective: Part 2î - ̧Domino Hazard Index and case study J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 160 (1) 110-121
23. AICHE/CCPS Guidelines for Evaluating Process Plant Building for External Explosion and Fires; American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, 1996.