Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A New Method for Siting Hazardous Units in Chemical Process Facilities Which Minimizes Risk at Least Cost: RIDIMPUS

  • Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • Published:
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new method, RIsk and DIstance Minimization in Process Units Siting (RIDIMPUS), is presented with which hazardous units can be sited in a chemical process facility in a manner that the risk of accidents involving the hazardous units as also the cost of spacing the units is minimized. To achieve this, safety and cost factors were modeled using various governing parameters and then expressions were designed to integrate the safety and the economic concerns to form model equations, inequalities and disjunctions. The resulting nonlinear programming model is solvable by using algorithms and solvers on any common desktop computer, thereby providing an optimal and prompt solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, The expertise and the practice of loss prevention in the Indian process industry. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 83(B5), 413–420 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, The boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE): mechanism, consequence assessment, control. J. Hazard. Mater. 141, 489–519 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Accidental risk of superheated liquids and a framework for predicting the superheat limit. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 20, 165–181 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Dust explosions: cases, causes, consequence, control. J. Hazard. Mater. 140, 7–44 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, The boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE) is fifty… and lives on! J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 21, 485–487 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. T. Abbasi, H. Pasman, S.A. Abbasi, A scheme for the classification of explosions in the chemical process industry. J. Hazard. Mater. 174, 270–280 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. T. Abbasi, E.V. Ramasamy, F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, Regional EIA and Risk Assessment in a Fast Developing Country (Nova Science, New York, 2013). ISBN 978-1-61942-234-6

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. Abdolhamidzadeh, T. Abbasi, D. Rashtchian, S.A. Abbasi, A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry. J. Hazard. Mater. 182, 416–426 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. B. Abdolhamidzadeh, D. Rashtchian, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Domino effect in process-industry accidents—an inventory of past events and identification of some patterns. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24(5), 575–593 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. G. Antonioni, G. Spadoni, V. Cozzani, Application of domino effect quantitative risk assessment to an extended industrial area. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22(5), 614–624 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. BP (Firm), Fatal Accident Investigation Report, Isomerization Unit Explosion Final Report, Texas City, Texas, USA (British Petroleum, London, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Basheer, S.M. Tauseef, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Methodologies for assessing risks of accidents in chemical process industries. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manage. (2017, communicated)

  13. Buncefield incident, 11 December 2005: the final report of the Major Incident Investigation Board. Health and Safety Executive, 2008

  14. CCPS, Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis (Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Hoboken, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  15. CCPS, Guidelines for Investigating Chemical Process Incidents, 2nd edn. (Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2003). ISBN 0-8169-0897-4

    Google Scholar 

  16. CCPS, Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (Center for Chemical Process Safety American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2007). ISBN 978-0-470-16569-0

    Google Scholar 

  17. Daily mail, Half a million people evacuated as deadly fire rages through Jaipur oil depot, London: Dailymail.co.uk. 1 November 2009

  18. N.S. Georgiadis, C.D. Terzidou, A.S. Dimitriadis, Coralline hydroxyapatite sphere in orbit restoration. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 9(4), 302–308 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. D. Holmstrom, F. Altamirano, J. Banks, G. Joseph, M. Kaszniak, C. Mackenzie, S. Wallace, CSB investigation of the explosions and fire at the BP Texas City refinery on March 23, 2005. Process Saf. Prog. 25(4), 345–349 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. D.M. Johnson, The potential for vapour cloud explosions–Lessons from the Buncefield accident. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 23(6), 921–927 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. S. Jung, D. Ng, C.D. Laird, M.S. Mannan, A new approach for facility siting using mapping risks on a plant grid area and optimization. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 23(6), 824–830 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, Accident hazard index; A multi-attribute method for process industry hazard rating. Process saf. Environ. Prot. 75, 217–224 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, OptHAZOP – an effective and optimal methodology for conducting HAZOP, study. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 10, 191–204 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, TOPHAZOP: a knowledge—based software. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. (Elsevier) 10, 333–343 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, Techniques and Methodologies for Risk Analysis in Chemical Process Industries (Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi, 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  26. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, DOMIEFECT: (DoMIno eFFECT) a user-friendly software for domino effect-analysis. Environ. Model Softw. 13, 163–177 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, Models for domino effect analysis in process industries. Process Saf. Prog. 17, 107–123 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, Multivariate hazard identification and ranking system. Process Saf. Prog. 17, 157–170 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, MAXCRED—a new software package for rapid risk assessment in chemical process industries. Environ. Model. Softw. 14, 11–25 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, The worst chemical industry accident of 1990s: what happened and what might have been—a quantitative study. Process Saf. Prog. 18, 135–145 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, Estimation of probabilities and likely consequences of a chain of accidents (domino effect) in Manali Industrial Complex. J. Clean. Prod. 9, 493–508 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, An assessment of the likelihood of occurrence, and the damage potential of domino effect in a typical cluster of industries. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 14, 283–306 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, SWEHI a new user-friendly tool for swift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation. Trans IChemE 79(2), 65–80 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, A new methodology for safety management: SCAP. J. Hazard. Mater. A87, 23–56 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. F.I. Khan, S.A. Abbasi, A criteria for developing credible accident scenarios for risk assessment. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 15, 467–475 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. M.S. Mannan, H.H. West, P.C. Berwanger, Lessons learned from recent incidents: facility siting, atmospheric venting, and operator information systems. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 20, 644–650 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. S. Mannan, Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  38. J.C. Mecklenburgh, Process Plant Layout (Wiley, New York, 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Z. Mingguang, J. Juncheng, An improved probit method for assessment of domino effect to chemical process equipment caused by overpressure. J. Hazard. Mater. 158(23), 280–286 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. K.B. Mishra, K.D. Wehrstedt, H. Krebs, Lessons learned from recent fuel storage fires. Fuel Process. Technol. 107, 166–172 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. D.I. Patsiatzis, G. Knight, L.G. Papageorgiou, An MILP approach to safe process plant layout. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 82(5), 579–586 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. F.D. Penteado, A.R. Ciric, An MINLP approach for safe process plant layout. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35(4), 1354–1361 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. M.S. Peters, K.D. Timmerhaus, R.E. West, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers (McGraw Hill, New York, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Puerto Rico Seismic Network (2009) Informe Especial, Explosión de Caribbean Petroleum en Bayamón, PR, 23 de octubre de 2009. University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez Campus

  45. E. Salzano, V. Cozzani, The analysis of domino accidents triggered by vapor cloud explosions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 90(23), 271–284 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. J.A. Tompkins, J.A. White, Y.A. Bozer, E.H. Frazelle, J.M.A. Tanchoco, J. Treviño, Facility Planning (Wiley, New York, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  47. S.M. Tauseef, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Risks of fire and explosion associated with the increasing use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 10(4), 322–333 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. S.M. Tauseef, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Development of a new chemical process-industry accident database to assist in past accident analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24, 426–431 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. S.M. Tauseef, D. Rashtchian, S.A. Abbasi, A method for simulation of vapour cloud explosions based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD). J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24, 638–647 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S. Vasanth, S.M. Tauseef, T. Abbasi, S.A. Abbasi, Assessment of four turbulence models in simulation of large-scale pool fires in the presence of wind using computational fluid dynamics. J. Less Prev. Process Ind. 26, 1071–1084 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. R. Vazquez-Roman, J.H. Lee, S. Jung, M.S. Mannan, Optimal facility layout under toxic release in process facilities: a stochastic approach. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34(1), 122–133 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

SAA thanks the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, for the Emeritus Scientist Grant (21(1034)/16/EMR-II).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Pollution Control and Environmental Engineering, Pondicherry University, Chinakalapet, Puducherry, 605 014, India

    A. Basheer, Tasneem Abbasi & S. A. Abbasi

  2. Environmental Research Institute, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, 248 007, India

    S. M. Tauseef

Authors
  1. A. Basheer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. M. Tauseef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tasneem Abbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. A. Abbasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tasneem Abbasi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basheer, A., Tauseef, S.M., Abbasi, T. et al. A New Method for Siting Hazardous Units in Chemical Process Facilities Which Minimizes Risk at Least Cost: RIDIMPUS. J Fail. Anal. and Preven. 18, 83–91 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-018-0385-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-018-0385-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation