Skip to main content

An Assessment of the Appropriateness of the Prescribed “Safe Distances” for Siting Hazardous Process Units to Prevent Domino Effect

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Fire and Process Safety

Abstract

One of the most dangerous consequences of an equipment failure in process industries resulting in a fire and/or explosion is the triggering off of the “domino effect” or “chain of accidents.” An accident in a unit may trigger an accident in another unit which, in turn, may lead to yet other accidents. To prevent such an occurance, it is imperative that hazardous units are kept safe distances away from each other. Of the types of accidents that can occur in chemical process industries, the boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) is perhaps the most destructive of the forms of accidental explosions that can occur during the manufacture, storage, or transportation of chemicals in a pressure-liquefied state. The resulting blast wave, missiles, and fire or toxic release can cause great damage to life and property. There are several standards and codes which prescribe minimum safe distances to be maintained between equipment to prevent the domino effect from occurring. Of these the code prescribed by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), USA, is among the ones most widely adopted for locating hazardous units. This paper evaluates the effectives of the safe distances prescribed by the NFPA 58 code in preventing a BLEVE in one vessel from causing other vessels and nearby structures to fail. The study reveals that the distances presented by NFPA are not sufficient to prevent the domino effect when the primary accident is a BLEVE.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Khan F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1998. Techniques and methodologies for risk analysis in chemical process industries. Discovery Publishing House New Delhi ix + 364 Pages.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abbasi, T., E.V. Ramasamy, F.I. Khan, and S.A. Abbasi. 2013. Regional EIA and risk assessment in a fast developing country. Nova Science, New York. x+433 pages. ISBN 978-1-61942-234-6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1997. Accident hazard index: A multi-attribute method for process industry hazard rating. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 75 (4): 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Abbasi, T., and S.A. Abbasi. 2008. The boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE) is fifty… and lives on! Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 21: 485–487.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tauseef, S.M., and S.A. Abbasi. 2011. CFD-based simulation of dense gas dispersion in presence of obstacles. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24: 371–376.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1998. Models for domino effect analysis in process industries. Process Safety Progress (AIChE) 17: 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1998. DOMIEFECT: (DoMIno eFFECT) a user-friendly software for domino effect-analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software 13: 163–177.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Abdolhamidzadeh, B., T. Abbasi, D. Rashtchian, and S.A. Abbasi. 2010. A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry. Journal of Hazardous Materials 182: 416–426.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1999. MAXCRED—a new software package for rapid risk assessment in chemical process industries. Environmental Modeling & Software 14 (1): 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 2002. A criteria for developing credible accident scenarios for risk assessment. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 15 (6): 467–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 2001. Estimation of probabilities and likely consequences of a chain of accidents (domino effect) in Manali Industrial Complex. Journal of Cleaner Production 9 (6): 493–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 2001. An assessment of the likelihood of occurrence, and the damage potential of domino effect in a typical cluster of industries. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 14: 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1999. The worst chemical industry accident of 1990s: What happened and what might have been—a quantitative study. Process Safety Progress 18: 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Abbasi, T., and S.A. Abbasi. 2007. Accidental risk of superheated liquids and a framework for predicting the superheat limit. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 20: 165–181.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abbasi, T., H. Pasman, and S.A. Abbasi. 2010. A scheme for the classification of explosions in the chemical process industry. Journal of Hazardous Materials 174: 270–280.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abdolhamidzadeh, B., T. Abbasi, D. Rashtchian, and S.A. Abbasi. 2010. Corrigendum to A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry. Journal of Hazardous Materials 184: 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1997. OptHAZOP—an effective and optimal methodology for conducting HAZOP, study. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 10: 191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Khan, F.I., and S.A. Abbasi. 1997. TOPHAZOP: A knowledge-based software. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 10: 333–343.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vasanth S., S.M. Tauseef, T. Abbasi, and S.A. Abbasi. 2013. Assessment of four turbulence models in simulation of large-scale pool fires in the presence of wind using computational fluid dynamics. Journal of Less Prevention in the Process Industries 26: 1071–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  21. NFPA-58. 2001. Standard for the storage and handling of liquefied petroleum gases. 49 CFR 173.315. Date of action: 76 FR 3345, Jan. 19, 2011. An international codes and standards organization.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mukhim, E.D., T. Abbasi, S.M. Tauseef, and S.A. Abbasi. 2017a. Estimation of overpressure from boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE). Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, communication.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mukhim, E.D., T. Abbasi, S.M. Tauseef and S.A. Abbasi. 2015. An assessment of the effectiveness of the NFPA 58 code in prescribing safe distances between LPG storage vessels and adjacent building/structures. International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering Research 6 (2): 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mukhim, E.D., T. Abbasi, S.M. Tauseef, and S.A. Abbasi. 2017b. Domino effect in chemical process industries triggered by overpressure-formulation of equipment-specific probits. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 106: 263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Birk, A.M., 1997. Fire tests of propane tanks to study BLEVEs and other thermal ruptures: detailed analysis of medium scale test results (No. TP 12498E).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Birk, A.M., J.D.J. VanderSteen and C.R. Davison. 2003. PRV field trials-the effects of fire conditions and PRV blowdown on propane tank survivability in a fire (No. TP 14045E).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Balke, C., W. Heller, R. Konersmann, and J. Ludwig. 1999. Study of the failure limits of a railway tank car filled with liquefied petroleum gas subjected to an open pool fire test, BAM project 3215. Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Johnson, D.M., M.J. Pritchard, and M.J. Wickens. 1991. Large scale experimental study of BLEVE: Contract report on CEC co-funded research project, Contract report 15367, Project M8411. British Gas: Research & Technology division.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Giesbrecht, H., K. Hess, W. Leuckel, and B. Maurer. 1981. Analysis of explosion hazards on spontaneous release of inflammable gases into the atmosphere. Germ Chem Eng 4: 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tasneem Abbasi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mukhim, E.D., Abbasi, T., Tauseef, S.M., Abbasi, S.A. (2018). An Assessment of the Appropriateness of the Prescribed “Safe Distances” for Siting Hazardous Process Units to Prevent Domino Effect. In: Siddiqui, N., Tauseef, S., Abbasi, S., Rangwala, A. (eds) Advances in Fire and Process Safety. Springer Transactions in Civil and Environmental Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7281-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7281-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7280-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7281-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics