Method for quantitative assessment of the domino effect in industrial sites

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 452-462

  Kadri, Farid ^a,b   Châtelet, Eric ^c   Chen, Guangpu ^c  

^a UNIV LILLE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE VALENCIENNES   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIE DE TROYES   (France)

Author keywords

Cascading events; Domino effect; Explosions; Fires; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CASCADING EVENTS; CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES; DOMINO EFFECTS; ESCALATION VECTORS; FIRE AND EXPLOSION; INDUSTRIAL SITES; QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS; SOCIETAL RISKS;

ACCIDENTS; EXPLOSIONS; FIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

INDUSTRY;

EID: 84888440653     PISSN: 09575820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.010     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. B. Abdolhamidzadeh, T. Abbasi, D. Rashtchian, and S.A. Abbasi Domino effect in process-industry-an inventory of past events and identification of some patterns J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 24 5 2010 575 593
2. Auguin, G., Rabilloud, A., Guillaume, E., 2008. Caractérisation et réduction de la vulnérabilité du bâti face à un phénomène dangereux technologique thermique. Technical Report. Laboratoire national de métrologie et d'essais, 189 pp.
3. W.E. Baker, P.A. Cox, P. Westine, J.J. Kulesz, and R.A. Strehlow Explosion Hazards and Evaluation 1983 Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co. Amsterdam, New York 807 pp.
4. Baker, W.E., Kulesz, J.J., Ricker, R., Bessey, E., Westine, P.S., Parr, V.B., Oldham, G.A., 1977. Workbook for Predicting Pressure Wave and Fragment Effects of Exploding Propellant Tanks and Gas Storage Vessels. NASA CR-134906. NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office, Washington.
5. M.R. Baum Disruptive failure of pressure vessels: preliminary design guidelines for fragment velocity and the extent of the hazard zone J. Press. Vess. Technol. 110 2 1988 168 176
6. CCPS, 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosion, Flash Fire and BLEVE's. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York.
7. CCPS, 1999. Guidelines for Consequences Analysis of Chemical Releases. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, ISBN 0-8169-0786-2.
8. V. Cozzani, G. Antonioni, and G. Spadoni Quantitative assessment of domino scenarios by a GIS-based software tool J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 19 5 2006 463 477
9. V. Cozzani, G. Gubinelli, G. Antonioni, G. Spadoni, and S. Zanelli The assessment of risk caused by domino effect in quantitative area risk analysis J. Hazard. Mater. 127 2005 14 30
10. V. Cozzani, G. Gubinelli, and E. Salzano Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events J. Hazard. Mater. 129 2006 1 21
11. V. Cozzani, and E. Salzano The quantitative assessment of domino effects caused by overpressure. Part I. Probit models J. Hazard. Mater. A 107 2004 67 80
12. V. Cozzani, and E. Salzano Threshold values for domino effects caused by blast wave interaction with process equipment J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 17 6 2004 437 447
13. A.C. Daniel, and J.F. Louvard Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications 2002 Prentice Hall International Series in the Physical and Chemical Engineering Sciences
14. R.M. Darbra, A. Palacios, and J. Casal Domino effect in chemical accidents: main features and accident sequences J. Hazard. Mater. 183 2010 556 573
15. Eggen, J., 1998. GAME: development of guidance for the application of the multi-energy method. Technical Report. Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
16. Eisenberg, N.A., Lynch, C.J., Breeding, R.J., 1975. Vulnerability Model: A Simulation System for Assessing Damage Resulting from Marine Spills, Report CG-D-136-75. Enviro Control Inc., Rockville, MD.
17. Gledhill, J., Lines, I., 1998. Development of Methods to Assess the Significance of Domino Effects from Major Hazard Sites, CR Report 183. Health and Safety Executive.
18. U. Hauptmanns A Monte-Carlo based procedure for treating the flight of missiles from tank explosion Prob. Eng. Mech. 16 4 2001 307 312
19. U. Hauptmanns A procedure for analyzing the flight of missiles from explosions of cylindrical vessels J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 14 5 2001 395 402
20. P. Holden, and A.B. Reeves Fragment hazards from failures of pressurized liquefied gas vessels IchemE Symposium Series 93 1985 205 220
21. P.L. Holden Assessment of Missile Hazards: Review of Incident Experience Relevant to Major Hazard Plant 1988 Safety and Reliability Directorate, Health & Safety Diractorate
22. Ineris, 2005. Arrêté du 29/09/05 relatif à l'évaluation et à la prise en compte de la probabilité d'occurrence, de la cinétique, de l'intensité des effets et de la gravité des conséquences des accidents potentiels dans les études de dangers des installations classées soumises à autorisation. Journal officiel du 7 Octobre 2005. http://www.ineris.fr.
23. Kadri, F., Châtelet, E., Elegbede, C. Domino effect analysis and assessment of industrial sites: a review of methodologies and software tools. J. Model. Simulation Sys., submitted for publication.
24. F.I. Khan, and S.A. Abbasi Models for domino effect analysis in chemical process industries Process Safe. Prog.-AIChE 17 2 1998 107 113
25. N.A. Labath, and A. Amendola Analysis of domino effect incident scenarios by the DYLAM aproach 6th International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries Olso, Norway 1989 12 22
26. G. Landucci, G. Gubinelli, G. Antonioni, and V. Cozzani The assessment of the damage probability of storage tanks in domino events triggered by fire Accident Anal. Prev. 41 6 2009 1206 1215
27. P. Latha, G. Gautam, and K.V. Raghavan Strategies for quantification of thermally initiated cascade effects J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 5 1 1992 15 21
28. F.P. Lees Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2nd ed. 1996 Butterworth-Heinemann
29. F.P. Lees, and M.L. Ang Safety Cases within the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH) Regulations 1989 Butterworths Scientific in London
30. A. Mebarki, F. Mercier, Q.B. Nguyen, and R. Ami Saada Structural fragments and explosions in industrial facilities. Part I. Probabilistic description of the source terms J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 22 4 2009 408 416
31. A. Mebarki, Q.B. Nguyen, and F. Mercier Structural fragments and explosions in industrial facilities. Part II. Projectile trajectory and probability of impact J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 22 4 2009 417 425
32. Z. Mingguang, and J. Juncheng An improved probit method for assessment of domino effect to chemical process equipment caused by overpressure J. Hazard. Mater. 158 2008 208 286
33. Q.B. Nguyen, A. Mebarki, R. Ami Saada, F. Mercier, and M. Reimeringer Integrated probabilistic framework for domino effect and risk analysis Adv. Eng. Softw. 40 9 2009 892 901
34. C.M. Petersen Analysis of the LPG disaster in Mexico City J. Hazard. Mater. 20 1988 85 107
35. G.N. Pettitt Evaluating the probability of major hazardous incidents as a result of escalation events J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 6 1 1993 37 46
36. Pietersen, C., 1985. Analysis of the LPG Accident in San Juan Ixhuatepec, Mexico City, November 19, 1984. TNO. Technical Report. The Hague.
37. G. Purdy, R.M. Pitblado, and D.F. Bagster Tank fire escalation modeling and mitigation International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries 1992
38. Z. Török, N. Ajtai, A.T. Turcu, and A. Ozunu Comparative consequence analysis of the BLEVE phenomena in the context on land use planning; case study: The feyzin accident Process Safe. Environ. Protect. 81 1 2011 1 7
39. Uijt de Haag, P., Ale, B., 1999. Guidelines for Quantitative Risk Assessment (Purple Book).
40. A. Van Den Berg, M. Van Der Voort, J. Weerheijm, and N. Versloot Expansion-controlled evaporation: a safe approach to bleve blast J. Loss Prev. Process Indus. 17 6 2004 397 405
41. Van Den Bosh, C., Weterings, R.A.P.M., 1996. Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases) 'Yellow Book'. The Hague.
42. C. Van Den Bosh, and R. Weterings Methods for Determining Possible Damage 1997 Green Book, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters
43. Van Den Bosh, C., Merx, W., Jansen, C.M.A, D.W.D., Reuzel, P., Leeuwen, D., 1989. Methods for the Calculation of Possible Damage (Green Book).