The physical properties of dimethylether (DME) are similar to conventional fuels such as LPG and diesel, so DME has been recently considered one of the most promising candidates for a substitute for them. Equipment failures in gas stations lead to accidents that pose significant threats to people and property. Therefore, prior to commercialization, safety standards for DME need to be developed based on risk analysis. In this study, we focused on safety distance_x000D_ in DME filling stations. A hypothetical DME filling station was modeled based on a DME-LPG mixed filling station designed by KOGAS, and safety distances were suggested from a semi-quantitative risk estimation approach using individual risk calculations. Modified individual risk calculations were performed with consequence analysis and failure mode under varying accident scenarios. Compared with existing individual risk analysis, the modified-individual risk approach is supplemented with a weighting factor to graduate each accident scenario by historical analysis. Subsequently, the outcome shows the individual risk that suggests a safety distance. To compare with conventional fuel, we also performed a comparative study on the filling station fuels LPG and DME. According to the quantitative risk estimation results, we propose a separation distance based on accident scenarios for each facility. In conclusion, safe distances for DME facilities are lower than those that dispense LPG. Therefore, a DME filling unit can be placed at conventional gas stations without increasing the safety distance. The results will also be useful in determining the standard for safety management of renewable and sustainable energy.

Safety Distance Accident Scenarios Modified-individual Risk Semi-quantitative Method

Marangona A, Carcassia M, Engeb A, Nilsen S, Safety distances: Definition and values, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy. (2007)
Lee YG, Han JC, Lee SW, Standard of LPG gas filling station, KGS (2005)
CPQRA. Guideline for chemical process quantitative risk analysis, ISBN 0-8169-0402-2, The Center for Chemical ProcessSafety of American Institute of Chemical Engineers (1988)
Franks AR, Maddison AT, Simplified method for the estimation of individual risk., IChem (2006)
Jo YD, J. Korean Inst. Gas., 3(2), 24 (1999)
Fauske HK, Flashing Flows or Some Practical Guidelines for Emergency Releases, Plant/Operation Progress (1985)
Jo YD, Crowl DA, Individual risk analysis of high-pressure natural gas pipelines, Loss Prevention (2008)
Jo YD, Kim RH, Gas leak dispersion model and estimation of explosion effect, Chem. Ind. Technol. (1996)
TNO Yellow Book, Methods for the calculation of the physical effects of the escape of dangerous material, Chapter 6, TNO Rijswijk, The Netherlands (1989)
Crowl DA, Louvar JF, Chem. Process Safety, 2nd, Prentice Hall, 225 (2002)
Rausch AH, Eisenberg NA, Lynch CJ, Continuing development of the vulnerability model (VM2), Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Washington DC, and Report No. CG-53-77, Feb. (1977)
CCPS Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedure 3rd, WILEY, 142 (2008)
Matthijsen AJCM, Kooi ES, Safety distance for hydrogen filling station, Loss Prevention (2006)
Jo YD, Ahn BJ, Analysis of hazard areas associated with highpressure natural-gas pipelines, Loss Prevention (2002)
Health and Safety Executive, Reducing risks, protecting people - HSE’s decision making processes, HSE Books (2001)
AIChE/CCPS Guideline for chemical process quantitative risk analysis, ISBN0-8169-0720-X (2nd ed.), Center for Chemical Process Safety of American Institute of Chemical Engineers (2000)