Advertisement

Consequence Analysis of the Accidental Scenarios

  • Fabio BorghettiEmail author
  • Paolo Cerean
  • Marco Derudi
  • Alessio Frassoldati
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)

Abstract

This chapter describes the approach used to determine the evolution of the consequences for each of the accidental scenarios considered in the risk analysis procedure. The consequence analysis allows to estimate which are the negative effects of the accidents that can affect both the egress and tenability of tunnel users.

References

  1. 1.
    Poon SL (2014) A dynamic approach to ASET/RSET assessment in performance based design. Procedia Eng 71:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO 13571:2012 (2012) Life-threatening components of fire—guidelines for the estimation of time to compromised tenability in fires. International Standardization Organization, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Favrin S, Busini V, Rota R, Derudi M (2018) Practical les modelling of jet fires: issues and challenges. Chem Eng Trans 67:259–264.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1867044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tavelli S, Derudi M, Cuoci A, Frassoldati A (2013) Numerical analysis of pool fire consequences in confined environments. Chem Eng Trans 31:127–132.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1331022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tavelli S, Rota R, Derudi M (2014) A critical comparison between CFD and zone models for the consequence analysis of fires in congested environments. Chem Eng Trans 36:247–252.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1436042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borghetti F, Derudi M, Gandini P, Frassoldati A, Tavelli S (2017) The test results. In: Tunnel fire testing and modeling: the Morgex north tunnel experiment. Springer International Publishing, pp 39–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49517-0_4
  7. 7.
    Borghetti F, Derudi M, Gandini P, Frassoldati A, Tavelli S (2017) Evaluation of the consequences on the users safety. In: Tunnel fire testing and modeling: the Morgex north tunnel experiment. Springer International Publishing, pp 65–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49517-0_5
  8. 8.
    Derudi M, Bovolenta D, Busini V, Rota R (2014) Heavy gas dispersion in presence of large obstacles: Selection of modelling tools. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:9303–9310.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie4034895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Sabatino S, Buccolieri R, Pulvirenti B, Britter R (2007) Simulations of pollutant dispersion within idealised urban-type geometries with CFD and integral models. Atmos Environ 41:8316–8329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pontiggia M, Derudi M, Alba M, Scaioni M, Rota R (2010) Hazardous gas releases in urban areas: assessment of consequences through CFD modelling. J Hazard Mater 176:589–596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yeoh GH, Yuen KK (2009) Computational fluid dynamics in fire engineering: theory, modelling and practice. Butterworth-Heinemann Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/TR 13387-3:1999 (1999) Fire safety engineering—Part 3: assessment and verification of mathematical fire models. International Standardization Organization, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Emmons HW (1985) The needed fire science. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on fire safety scienceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim E, Woycheese JP, Dembsey NA (2008) Fire dynamics simulator (version 4.0) simulation for tunnel fire scenarios with forced, transient, longitudinal ventilation flows. Fire Technol 44(2):137–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGrattan K, Hostikka S, Floyd J, Baum H, Rehm R, Mell W, McDermott R (2014) Fire dynamics simulator (version 6.1). Technical reference guide—mathematical model. NIST Special Publication 1018-15, US Government Printing Office, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rehm RG, Baum HR (1978) The equations of motion for thermally driven, buoyant flows. J Res NBS 83:297–308zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hostikka S (2008) Development of fire simulation models for radiative heat transfer and probabilistic risk assessment. Ph.D. thesis, VTT Publications, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Floyd J (2002) Comparison of CFAST and FDS for fire simulation with the HDR T51 and T52 Tests. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meo MG (2009) Modeling of enclosure fires. Ph.D. thesis, University of Salerno, Italy. ISBN 88-7897-032-8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Modic J (2003) Fire simulation in road tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 18(5):525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Apte VB, Green AR, Kent JH (1991) Pool fire plume flow in a large-scale wind tunnel. In: Fire safety science proceeding of the 3rd international symposium, pp 425–434Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Borghetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paolo Cerean
    • 2
  • Marco Derudi
    • 3
  • Alessio Frassoldati
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of DesignPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of DesignPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations