Volume 6, Issue 4 (Winter 2020)
johe 2020, 6(4): 1-9 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
AHMADI O, sarvestani K, Mortazavi S B, Asilian H. Prediction of fireball consequences caused by Boilover occurrence in the atmospheric storage tanks. johe 2020; 6 (4) :1-9
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-503-en.html
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-503-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , o.ahmadi@modares.ac.ir
2- Department of Occupational Health and Safety Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , o.ahmadi@modares.ac.ir
Abstract: (5430 Views)
Background and Objective: Although Boilover occurs with a low frequency; however, in case of occurrence, it can cause severe damage to people and equipment around the tank. The prediction of the consequences followed by a fireball of the Boilover phenomenon has an important role in adopting appropriate strategies for fire suppression of the atmospheric storage tank. This study aimed to predict the consequences after fireball caused by the Boilover phenomenon using empirical models.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted based on a descriptive-analytical design. Initially, empirical models presented for the prediction of the Boilover consequences were identified in this study. Subsequently, the models were utilized to predict the fireball geometry and its radiation heat flux around the tank. Eventually, the results obtained from the predictions were compared with the data of a small-scale experimental study and a large-scale real Boilover accident.
Results: According to the results, the errors obtained from INERIS and Buang model to predict the radiation heat flux around the experimental Boilover were 23% and 31%, respectively. Moreover, the errors of these two prediction models were 52% and 71% for a real accident, respectively.
Conclusion: The INERIS and Buang models showed lower rates of errors for the prediction of the Boilover fireball consequences, compared to other models. The results of this study can be used to assess the risk of Boilover in atmospheric storage tanks. Moreover, they help accident decision-makers decide on strategies and tactics for the fire suppression of atmospheric storage tanks.
Materials and Methods: This study was conducted based on a descriptive-analytical design. Initially, empirical models presented for the prediction of the Boilover consequences were identified in this study. Subsequently, the models were utilized to predict the fireball geometry and its radiation heat flux around the tank. Eventually, the results obtained from the predictions were compared with the data of a small-scale experimental study and a large-scale real Boilover accident.
Results: According to the results, the errors obtained from INERIS and Buang model to predict the radiation heat flux around the experimental Boilover were 23% and 31%, respectively. Moreover, the errors of these two prediction models were 52% and 71% for a real accident, respectively.
Conclusion: The INERIS and Buang models showed lower rates of errors for the prediction of the Boilover fireball consequences, compared to other models. The results of this study can be used to assess the risk of Boilover in atmospheric storage tanks. Moreover, they help accident decision-makers decide on strategies and tactics for the fire suppression of atmospheric storage tanks.
Type of Study: Research Article |
Subject:
Safety
References
1. The Buncefield incident, 11 December 2005: the final report of the Major Incident Investigation Board. London: Health and Safety Executive; 2008.
2. Girdhar M. Jaipur fire and its environmental effects. Fire Eng. 2012;37(3):21-2.
3. Explosion ST. Fire in Glenpool, Oklahoma April 7, 2003. NTSB/PAR-04/02, PB2004-916502, Notation 7666. Washington, D.C: National Transportation Safety Board; 2003.
4. Myers PE. Aboveground storage tanks. New York: McGrawHill; 1997.
5. Long B, Garner B. Guide to storage tanks and equipment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
6. Casal J. Evaluation of the effects and consequences of major accidents in industrial plants. New York: Elsevier; 2017.
7. Laboureur D. Experimental characterization and mondeling of hazards. Belgium: Bleve and Boilover; 2012.
8. National Fire Protection Association. NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code: NFPA 30A: code for motor fuel dispensing facilities and repair garages. California: The Association; 2000.
9. Hasegawa K. Experimental study on the mechanism of hot zone formation in open-tank fires. Fire Saf Sci. 1989;2:221- 30. DOI:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.2-221 [DOI]
10. Koseki H, Kokkala M, Mulholland GW. Experimental study of boilover in crude oil fires. Fire Saf Sci. 1991;3:865-74. DOI:10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.3-865 [DOI]
11. Koseki H, Mulholland GW. The effect of diameter on the burning of crude oil pool fires. Fire Technol. 1991;27(1):54- 65. DOI: 10.1007/BF01039527 [DOI]
12. Garo JP, Vantelon J, Koseki H. Thin-layer boilover: Prediction of its onset and intensity. Combustion Sci Technol. 2006;178(7):1217-35. DOI: 10.1080/00102200500296846 [DOI]
13. Broeckman B, Schecker H. Boilover: effects in burning oiltanks. 7th International symposium loss prevention and safety promotion in the process industries, Italia; 1992.
14. Casal J. Evaluation of the effects and consequences of major accidents in industrial plants. New York: Elsevier; 2008.
15. Buang A. Boilover in liquid hydrocarbon tank fires. Loughborough, England: Loughborough University; 2014.
16. Hall H. Oil tank fire boilover. Mechan Eng. 1925;47:540.
17. Broeckmann B, Schecker HG. Heat transfer mechanisms and boilover in burning oil-water systems. J Loss Prev Proc Indust. 1995;8(3):137-47. DOI: 10.1016/0950-4230(95)00016-T [DOI]
18. Prugh RW. Quantitative evaluation of fireball hazards. Proc Saf Progr. 1994;13(2):83-91. DOI: 10.1002/prs.680130211 [DOI]
19. van den Bosch CJ, Weterings RA. Methods for the calculation of physical effects: due to releases of hazardous materials, liquids and gases: Yellow Book. Netherlands: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke Ordening (VROM); 2005.
20. Book TY. Methods for the calculation of physical effects due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases). Committee Prev Disasters CRP E. 1997;14:870.
21. CfCP S. Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety; 2000.
22. Wu G, Baraldo M, Furlanut M. Calculating percentage prediction error: a user's note. Pharmacol Res. 1995; 32(4):241-8. PMID: 8866841 DOI: 10.1016/s1043-6618 (05)80029-5 [DOI] [PubMed]
23. Bennett JO, Briggs WL, Badalamenti A. Using and understanding mathematics: a quantitative reasoning approach. Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley Reading, MA; 2008.
24. Persson H, Lönnermark A. Tank Fires-Review of fire incidents 1951-2003. Sweden: SP Fire Technology; 2004.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.
Published by UMSHA Press
Journal Tel: +9881 38380090
Publisher Tel: +988138380548
Website: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir
Email: johe[at]umsha.ac.ir
