Review of Specific Calculation Methods for the Rijnmond Safety Study
- 62 Downloads
Cremer and Warner (C&W) were commissioned to conduct a study on the risk of six selected industrial installations in the Rijnmond area. Battelle-Institute e.V. was requested to prepare a counter expertise on this study which was expected in particular to consist of a critical review of C&W’s models for release, dispersion, and explosion. In addition, calculations on selected cases were to be made to show possible differences in the consequence analysis which might arise from different model approaches.
Our engagement in this risk study boils down to two major observations: first, in general we are in full agreement with C&W’s choice and application of most models to describe the consequences of unwanted events. Points of major disagreement are discussed below. Second, from some of these points of disagreements we conclude that the overall uncertainties of the results have been underestimated by C&W.
For unknown physical or statistical reasons C&Wexcluded two events which might make a significant contribution to the overall risk: ‘simultaneous failure of tank and bund of ACN or LNG storage tank’ and ‘tank rupture due to polymerisation of ACN’.
Two-phase flow release should be calculated according to the Moody theory which would in many cases result in lower consequences.
The uncertainties which result from the initial temperature of an ammonia cloud and from the initial dilution of material with air following a rupture of a pressurised tank have been underestimated or not analysed.
The calculations of dense gas dispersion are reliable for dilutions down to lower flammability limits of explosive gases but have not been validated experimentally for dilutions down to interesting limits of toxic concentrations. In the risk study the uncertainties for this dilution range affect only the worst case chlorine scenario, which is the tank rupture.
C&Wshould have considered and included in detail the effects of the local topography which critically influence the spreading of liquid on the ground and the spreading of heavy gas clouds. Both effects reduce in most cases the consequences.
C&Wshould have estimated the chances of people to escape unharmed a toxic vapour cloud when they smell it (warning time).
C&Wshould have modelled the explosion of a pancake-shaped heavy vapour cloud more realistically. The effects on the results are not significant for the investigated cases if C&W’s consequence criterion is applied: all people indoors and within the 0.3 bar overpressure contour are killed. If casualties from broken window glass were considered, C&W’s explosion model would greatly overestimate the consequences.
KeywordsRoughness Length Saturation Pressure Flame Speed Odour Threshold Entrainment Velocity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baldock, P.J.: “Accidental releases of ammonia - an analysis of reported incidents”; Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Encl. VM-174, presented at the AIChE Loss Prevention Meeting, Houston, Texas, April 1979Google Scholar
- Battelle: Report BF - RS 0016 B - 10–1, 1977Google Scholar
- Chiu, K.W.; Lee, J.H.; Knystanos, R.: “The blast waves from asymmetrical explosions”; J. Fluid Mech. 1977, pp. 193–208Google Scholar
- Cox, R.A.; Roe, D.E.: “A model of the dispersion of dense vapour clouds”; 2nd Intl. Loss Prevention Symposium, Heidelberg 1977Google Scholar
- Fauske, H.K.: “The Discharge of Saturated Water ThroughGoogle Scholar
- Pipes“; C.E.P. Symp. Series 61 p. 210Google Scholar
- Flothmann, D.; Nikodem, H.J.: “Ein Schwergasmodell mit stetigem Übergang zwischen Gravitations-und Dispersionsphase”; Symposium “Schwere Gase”, Frankfurt, 1979, to be publishedGoogle Scholar
- Kaiser, G.D.:“Examples of the successful application of a simple model for the atmospheric dispersion of dense, cold vapours to the accidental release of anhydrous ammonia from pressurised containers”; UKAEA, SRDR 150, March 1979Google Scholar
- Kaiser, G.D.; Walker, B.C.“Release of anhydrous ammonia from pressurised containers - the importance of denserthan-air mixtures”; Atmospheric Environment 12 (1978) 2289Google Scholar
- Lee, J.H.; Guiaro, C.M.; Chiu, K.W.; Bach, O.G.: “Blast waves from vapour cloud explosions”; AIChE Symposium, Houston, 1977Google Scholar
- Manier, G: “Vergleich zwischen Ausbreitungsklassen und Temperaturgradienten”; Met. Rdsch. 28, 6–11Google Scholar
- Möller, F.: “Einführung in die Meteorologie”, Vol. 2, B.I. HochschultaschenbücherGoogle Scholar
- Moody, F.J.: “APED-4827, GE Company, San José, Calif. 1965”; Winter Annual Meeting of the ASME, Houston, Texas, Nov. 1975Google Scholar
- Netherlands: “Experiments with Freon 12 and Chlorine”, The Ministry of Social Affairs, The Netherlands, 1975Google Scholar
- Nikodem, H.J.: “Risk Assessment Study for an Assumed LNG Terminal in the Lysekil Area”; Report prepared for the Swedish Energy Commission, Battelle-Institut, e.V., Frankfurt am Main, Feb. 1978Google Scholar
- Oppenheim, A.K.; Kuhl, A.L.; Kamel, M.M.: “On Flame-generated self-similar blast waves”; Conference Fuel-Air-Explosions, 1972, pp. 147–173Google Scholar
- Pana, P.; Mueller, M.: “Subcooled and two-phase critical flow states and comparison with data”, Nuclear Engineering and Design 45, 1978Google Scholar
- Picknett, R.G.;, R.G.; “Field Experiments on the Behavior of Dense Clouds”; U.K. Chemical Defense Establishment, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wilts., Report Ptn IL 1154/75/1, Sept. 1978Google Scholar
- Runca:“Atmospheric Environment” 9 (1969)Google Scholar
- Seinfeld, J.F.: “Air Pollution”; Physical and Chemical Fundaments; McGraw Hill Book Comp., 1976Google Scholar
- Tangermann, G.: “Numerische Modellrechnungen zur Abschätzung des Einflusses verschiedener Parameter auf die turbulente Diffusion von Luftverunreinigugen”; Diploma Thesis, University of Mainz, 1977Google Scholar
- Van Ulden, A.P.: 1st International Loss Prevention Symposium, The Hague, Delft, 1974Google Scholar
- Van Ulden, A.P.: Presentation at the Battelle Symposium “Schwere Gase”; Frankfurt am Main, 1979Google Scholar
- Willner, L.: “Immissionsprognosen-Vergleich verschiedener Verfahren”; Staub 37, 260, 1977Google Scholar