Articles & Issues
- Language
- English
- Conflict of Interest
- In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Publication history
-
Received July 28, 2017
Accepted October 11, 2017
- This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © KIChE. All rights reserved.
All issues
Evaluation of a mitigation system for leakage accidents using mathematical modeling
Department of Safety Engineering, Pukyong National University, 45, Yongso-ro, Nam-gu, Busan 48513, Korea
changjunlee@pknu.ac.kr
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, February 2018, 35(2), 348-354(7), 10.1007/s11814-017-0288-6
Download PDF
Abstract
Chemical accidents generated during maintenance, repair, and normal operation, such as dispersion, fire, and explosions, can cause massive losses within and outside workplaces. Since a 2012 hydro fluorine leak in Gumi, South Korea, many studies have investigated mitigation systems for reducing accident impact. However, due to potential costs, and lack time and expertise, most companies have hesitated to install mitigation systems without accurate impact evaluations. Therefore, it is essential to analyze mitigation system efficacy under various possible accident scenarios. We considered a mitigation system incorporating a reserve vessel installed next to a storage vessel. When a leakage accident occurs, the chemical in the main vessel is transferred to the reserve vessel by a pump. Simulation results based on Torricellis’ theorem indicate that this mitigation system could significantly reduce leakage, and reduce leakage consequences in terms of maximum diffusion distance and hazardous gas concentrations based on consequence analysis.
References
Meysami H, Ebadi T, Zohdirad H, Minepur M, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 26, 1407 (2013)
Parker RJ, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London (1975).
Assael MJ, Kakosimos KE, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, U.S.A. (2010).
Rana MA, Guo Y, Mannan MS, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 23, 77 (2010)
McQuaid J, Fitzpatrick RD, Inst. Chem. E. (1981).
McQuaid J, Fitzpatrick RD, J. Occup. Accid., 5, 121 (1983)
Moodie K, Process Saf. Prog., 4, 234 (1985)
Suardin JA, Qi R, Cormier BR, Rana M, Zhang Y, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 24, 63 (2011)
Busini V, Rota R, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 29, 13 (2014)
Liu D, Wei J, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 48, 14 (2017)
Swain MR, Shriber J, Swain MN, Energy Fuels, 12, 1 (1998)
US Environment Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and US Department of Transportation, U.S.A. (1987).
Parker RJ, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London (1975).
Assael MJ, Kakosimos KE, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, U.S.A. (2010).
Rana MA, Guo Y, Mannan MS, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 23, 77 (2010)
McQuaid J, Fitzpatrick RD, Inst. Chem. E. (1981).
McQuaid J, Fitzpatrick RD, J. Occup. Accid., 5, 121 (1983)
Moodie K, Process Saf. Prog., 4, 234 (1985)
Suardin JA, Qi R, Cormier BR, Rana M, Zhang Y, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 24, 63 (2011)
Busini V, Rota R, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 29, 13 (2014)
Liu D, Wei J, J. Loss. Prevent. Proc., 48, 14 (2017)
Swain MR, Shriber J, Swain MN, Energy Fuels, 12, 1 (1998)
US Environment Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and US Department of Transportation, U.S.A. (1987).