An approach for domino effect reduction based on optimal layouts

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 887-894

  López Molina, Antioco ^a   Vázquez Román, Richart ^a   Mannan, M Sam ^b   Félix Flores, M Guadalupe ^c  

^a DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA QUÍMICA   (Mexico)

^b Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE ZACATECAS   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Domino effect; Explosion; Layout; Overpressure; Probit function; Risk reduction

Indexed keywords

DOMINO EFFECTS; LAYOUT; OVERPRESSURE; PROBIT FUNCTIONS; RISK REDUCTIONS;

EXPLOSIONS; OPTIMIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

EID: 84880850931     PISSN: 09504230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2012.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abdolhamidzadeh B., Abbasi T., Rashtchian D., Abbasi S.A. Domino effect in process-industry accidents - an inventory of past events and identification of some patterns. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2011, 24(5):575-593.
2. Antonioni G., Spadoni G., Cozzani V. Application of domino effect quantitative risk assessment to an extended industrial area. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2009, 22(5):614-624.
3. Brooke A., Kendrick D., Meeraus A., Raman R. GAMS- a user guide 1998, GAMS Development Corporation, Washington, DC, USA.
4. Guidelines for consequence analysis of chemical releases 1999, CCPS, Center for chemical process safety of the AIChE, New York, New York.
5. Guidelines for facility siting and layout 2003, CCPS, Center for Chemical Process Safety, AIChE.
6. Cozzani V., Salzano E. The quantitative assessment of domino effect caused by overpressure: part II. Case studies. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2004, 107(3):81-94.
7. Cozzani V., Salzano E. The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure: part I. Probit models. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2004, 107(3):67-80.
8. Cozzani V., Salzano E. Threshold values for domino effects caused by blast wave interaction with process equipment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2004, 17(6):437-447.
9. Cozzani V., Antonioni G., Spadoni G. Quantitative assessment of domino scenarios by a GIS-based software tool. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2006, 19(5):463-477.
10. Cozzani V., Gubinelli G., Salzano E. Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2006, 129(1-3):1-21.
11. Cozzani V., Gubinelli G., Antonioni G., Spadoni G., Zanelli S. The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2005, 127(1-3):14-30.
12. Cozzani V., Tugnoli A., Salzano E. Prevention of domino effect: from active and passive strategies to inherently safer design. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007, 139(2):209-219.
13. Cozzani V., Tugnoli A., Salzano E. The development of an inherent safety approach to the prevention of domino accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2009, 41(6):1216-1227.
14. Crowl D.A., Louvar J.F. Chemical process safety: Fundamentals with applications 2011, Pearson Education. 3rd ed.
15. Díaz-Ovalle C., Vázquez-Román R., Mannan M.S. An approach to solve the facility layout problem based on the worst-case scenario. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2010, 23(3):385-392.
16. Gubinelli G., Zanelli S., Cozzani V. Asimplified model for the assessment of the impact probability of fragments. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2004, 116(3):175-187.
17. Jacobson L.C., Hujo W., Molinero V. Nucleation pathways of clathrate hydrates: effect of guest size and solubility. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2010, 114(43):13796-13807.
18. Khan F.I., Abbasi S.A. DOMIFFECT (DOMIno eFFECT): user-friendly software for domino effect analysis. Environmental Modelling and Software 1998, 13(2):163-177.
19. Khan F.I., Abbasi S.A. Models for domino effect analysis in chemical process industries. Process Safety Progress 1998, 17(2):107-123.
20. Khan F.I., Asad I., Abbasi S.A. Risk analysis of a petrochemical industry using ORA (optimal risk analysis) procedure. Process Safety Progress 2001, 20(2):95-110.
21. Kletz T. What went wrong?: Case histories of process plant disasters and how they could have been avoided 2009, Elsevier Inc.
22. Kourniotis S.P., Kiranoudis C.T., Markatos N.C. Statistical analysis of domino chemical accidents. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2000, 71(1-3):239-252.
23. Mannan S. Lees' loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control 2005, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, USA.
24. Mannan M.S., West H.H., Berwanger P.C. Lessons learned from recent incidents: facility siting, atmospheric venting, and operator information systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2007, 20(4-6):644-650.
25. Mecklenburgh J.C. Process plant layout 1985, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
26. Meller R.D., Chen W., Sherali H.D. Applying the sequence-pair representation to optimal facility layout designs. Operations Research Letters 2007, 35(5):651-659.
27. Mingguang Z., Juncheng J. An improved probit method for assessment of domino effect to chemical process equipment caused by overpressure. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2008, 158(2-3):280-286.
28. Papageorgiou L.G., Rotstein G.E. Continuous-domain mathematical models for optimal process plant layout. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 1998, 37(9):3631-3639.
29. Patsiatzis D.I., Knight G., Papageorgiou L.G. An MILP approach to safe process plant layout. Trans IChemE Part A: Chemical Engineering and Design 2004, 82(A5):579-586.
30. Penteado F.D., Ciric A.R. An MINLP approach for safe process plant layout. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 1996, 35(4):1354-1361.
31. Peters M.S., Timmerhaus K.D., West R.E. Plant design and economics for chemical engineers 2003, McGraw Hill, New York.
32. Reniers G. An external domino effects investment approach to improve cross-plant safety within chemical clusters. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2010, 177(1-3):167-174.
33. Reniers G.L.L., Dullaert W. DomPrevPlanning©: user-friendly software for planning domino effects prevention. Safety Science 2007, 45(10):1060-1081.
34. Reniers G.L.L., Dullaert W., Audenaert A., Ale B.J.M., Soudan K. Managing domino effect-related security of industrial areas. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2008, 21(3):336-343.
35. Reniers G.L.L., Dullaert W., Ale B.J.M., Soudan K. Developing an external domino accident prevention framework: Hazwim. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2005, 18(3):127-138.
36. Reniers G., Dullaert W., Karel S. Domino effects within a chemical cluster: a game-theoretical modeling approach by using Nash-equilibrium. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009, 167(1-3):289-293.
37. Salzano E., Cozzani V. The analysis of domino accidents triggered byvapor cloud explosions. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2005, 90(2-3):271-284.
38. Salzano E., Cozzani V. Afuzzy set analysis to estimate loss intensity following blast wave interaction with process equipment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2006, 19(4):343-352.
39. Singh S.P., Sharma R.R.K. Areview of different approaches to the facility layout problems. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2006, 30(5-6):425-433.
40. Methods for the calculation of physical effects due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases) 2005, TNO, The Yellow Book, CPR 14E, The Netherlands Organization of Applied Scientific Research.
41. Tompkins J.A., White J.A., Bozer Y.A., Frazelle E.H., Tanchoco J.M.A., Treviño J. Facility planning 1996, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.
42. Tugnoli A., Khan F., Amyotte P., Cozzani V. Safety assessment in plant layout design using indexing approach: implementing inherent safety perspective: part 1-guideword applicability and method description. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2008, 160(1):100-109.
43. Tugnoli A., Khan F., Amyotte P., Cozzani V. Safety assessment in plant layout design using indexing approach: implementing inherent safety perspective: part 2-Domino Hazard Index and case study. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2008, 160(1):110-121.
44. Turton R., Bailie R.C., Whiting W.B., Shaeiwitz J.A. Analysis, synthesis and design of chemical processes 2008, Prentice Hall.
45. Vázquez-Román R., Lee J.-H., Jung S., Mannan M.S. Optimal facility layout under toxic release in process facilities: a stochastic approach. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2010, 34(1):122-133.
46. Vilchez J.A., Montiel H., Casal J., Arnaldos J. Analytical expressions for the calculation of damage percentage using the probit methodology. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2001, 14:193-197.
47. Woodward J.L. Estimating flammable mass of a vapor cloud 1998, Center for Chemical Process Safety.