Advertisement

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 903–916 | Cite as

Fire and Explosion Risks in Petrochemical Plant: Assessment, Modeling and Consequences Analysis

  • Bekhouche SalouaEmail author
  • Rouaïnia Mounira
  • Medjram Mohamed Salah
Case History---Peer-Reviewed
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

The oil and gas industry is a theater of major accidents such as fire, explosion and dispersion of toxic substances. The physicochemical properties of exploited materials in this industry and its operating techniques can contribute to the escalation of these hazards. The aim of this study is to assess and model the fire and explosion hazards of liquefaction natural gas in Algeria as long as this later plays an important role in gas industry and global energy markets in the next several years. The first step used in this study is the hazard identification using HAZID tool. This step is completed by DOW’s F&EI as a second step to predict and quantify mathematically the fire and explosion damages in the Scrub Column and the MCHE the most critical systems in the LNG unit. In order to better understand the hazards severity of these risks, PHAST software is used to model and simulate the accident scenarios. The results will reveal that the two principal equipments of liquefaction unit (Scrub Column–MCHE) present an important risk as per HAZID and they present a severe risk as per DOW’s F&EI. The modelization of fire and explosion scenarios using PHAST software gives us a real image about these hazards which presented by Fireball, Flash Fire, Early and Late explosion. The combination of HAZID, DOW’s F&EI and PHAST simulator leads to better risk assessment, and helps in creating preventive measures, and taking serious decisions to reduce and limit fire and explosion risks in order to save human life as a first goal, environment and installations as a second goal and to avoid the financial and economic loss of Algeria.

Keywords

HAZID F&EI PHAST Liquefaction unit Scrub column MCHE 

Abbreviations

ESD

Emergency shut down

F1

General process hazard factor

F2

Special process hazard factor

F3

Process unit hazard factor

F&EI

Fire and explosion index

FHA

Fire hazard analysis

FMEA

Failure modes and effects analysis

GL1K

Liquefaction natural gas complex—Skikda

HRA

Human reliability analysis

HAZID

Hazard identification

HAZOP

Hazard and operability analysis

LFL

Low flammable limit

LMR

Liquid mixed refrigerant

LNG

Liquefied natural gas

LPG

Liquefied petrol gas

MCHE

Main cryogenic heat exchanger

MF

Material factor

MR

Mixed refrigerant

NFPA

National fire protection association

PHA

Process hazard analysis

SIL

Safety integrity level

VCE

Vapor cloud explosion

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    N. Paltrinieri, A. Tugnoli, V. Cozzani, Hazard identification for innovative LNG regasification technologies. J. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 137, 18–28 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.F. Barry, Risk-informed industrial fire protection engineering, in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th Edition, ed. M.J. Hurley, D. Gottuk, J.R. Hall Jr, K. Harada, E. Kuligowski, M. Puchovsky, J. Torero, J.M. Watts Jr, C. Wieczorek, 2016, pp. 3183–3210Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.K. Marhavilas, D. Koulouriotis, V. Gemeni, Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24(5), 477–523 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Hyatt, Guidelines for Process Hazards Analysis, Hazards Identification & Risk Analysis, 1st Edition, 2003 by Dyadem Press, pp. 6-1–6-26Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Kukhar, N. Yelistratova, V. Burko, Y. Nizhelska, O. Aksionova, Estimation of occupational safety risks at energetic sector of iron and steel works. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7(223), 216–220 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Nakayama, J. Sakamoto, N. Kasai, T. Shibutani, Science direct preliminary hazard identification for qualitative risk assessment on a hybrid gasoline-hydrogen fueling station with an on-site hydrogen production system using organic chemical hydride. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41(18), 7518–7525 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Wang, W. Song, Journal of loss prevention in the process industries fire and explosion index calculation method incorporating classified safety measure credits. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26(6), 1128–1133 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Wang, Y. Wu, Y. Wang, X. Feng, An industrial area layout optimization method based on dow’ s fire and explosion index method. Chem. Eng. Trans. 61, 493–498 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Ghasemi, S. Givehchi, Z. Branch, I. Azad, Z. Branch, Modeling the outcome of tank explosion using PHAST software and presentation of emergency operations plan (case study: ethylene tank of kavian petrochemical company). J. Fundam. Appl. Sci. 8, 2007–2021 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    X.U. Ji-xiang, Risk-identification-based hybrid method for estimating the system. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Science) 18(1), 70–75 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Rights, I. Lazakis, O. Turan, T. Rosendahl, Risk assessment for the installation and maintenance activities of a low- speed tidal energy converter, in Marine & Offshore Renewable Energy 2012. Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    AIChE, Dow’s Fire and Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide, 7th edn. New York, 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.J. Jafari, The credit of fire and explosion index for risk assessment of iso-max unit in oil refinery. Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 4(1), 10–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.O.B.N.O.J, Operating Manual Volume I, Section 3-1: Document No: PP-AAA-PP1-105, vol. 1, pp. 1–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.O.B.N.O.J., Operating Manual Volume I, Section 3-1: Document No: PP-AAA-PP1-106, vol. 1, pp. 1–36Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Notice, Operating Manual for the Main Cryogenic Heat Exchanger Skikda LNG Project APCI Project EN060585Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Products, P.D. Number, Vendor Document Cover Sheet for the MCR® Main Cryogenic Heat ExchangerGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Naemnezhad, A. Akbar, I. Ebrahim, Consequence assessment of separator explosion for an oil production platform in South of Iran with PHAST software. J. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 3(1), 1–12 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.J. Assael, K.E. Kakosimos, Fires, Explosions, and Toxic Gas Dispersions_ Effects Calculation and Risk Analysis, 1st edn, 2010Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Qian, M. Li, P. Huang, Comparative study on blast wave propagation of natural gas vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) in open space based on full-scale experiment comparative study on blast wave propagation of natural gas vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) in open space based on full-scale experiment and PHAST. J. Energy Fuels 30(No7), 6143–6152 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bekhouche Saloua
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rouaïnia Mounira
    • 1
  • Medjram Mohamed Salah
    • 1
  1. 1.LGCES Research Laboratory, Petrochemistry and Process Engineering DepartmentUniversity 20 août 1955- SkikdaSkikdaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations