Analysis and Simulation of Severe Accidents in a Steam Methane Reforming Plant
Severe accidents of process industries in Iran have increased significantly in recent decade. This study quantitatively analyzes the hazards of severe accidents imposed on people, equipment and building by a hydrogen production facility. A hazard identification method was applied. Then a consequence simulation was carried out using PHAST 6.54 software package and at the end, consequence evaluation was carried out based on the best-known and different criteria. Most hazardous jet fire and flash fire will be occurred in desulfurization and reformer units respectively. The most dangerous vapor cloud explosion will be caused by a rupture in desorfurizing reactor. This incident with an overpressure of 0.83 bars at a distance of 45 m will kill all people and will destroy all buildings and equipments that are located at this distance. The safety distance determined by TNO Multi-Energy model and according to the worst consequence is equal to 260 m. Vapor cloud explosion will have the longest harmful distance on both human and equipment compared to jet fire and flash fire. Atmospheric condition will have a significant influence on harmful distance, especially in vapor cloud explosion. Therefore, the hydrogen production by natural gas reforming is a high-risk process and should always be accompanied by the full implementation of the safety rules, personal protection and equipment fireproofing and building blast proofing against jet fire and explosions.
Pasman HJ, Rogers WJ. Safety challenges in view of the upcoming hydrogen economy: An overview. J Loss Prevent Proc 2010; 23(6): 697-4.
Li ZhY, Pan XM, Ma JX. Quantitative risk assessment on a gaseous hydrogen refueling station in Shanghai. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010; 35(13): 6822-9.
Zarei E, Jafari MJ, Badri N. Risk Assessment of Vapor Cloud Explosions in a Hydrogen Production Facility with Consequence Modeling. J Res Health Sci 2013; 13(2):181-187.
Regas F, Sklavunos S. Evaluation of hazards associated with hydrogen storage facilities. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010; 30(13-14): 1501-10.
Kletz T. What went wrong? Case histories of process plant disasters. 4th ed, Gulf Professional Publishing Co., Houston, US, 1994.
Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (FIMRT). Hydrogen safety, Brussels, German Hydrogen Association. 2002.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. 2nd ed, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE). New York, USA, 2000.
Zarei E, Dormohammadi A. Semi quantitative and quantitative risk assessment in process industries whit focus on techniques of QRA, LOPA, DOW index. 1st ed, Fanavaran Press., Tehran, Iran, 2014.
Li ZhY, Pan XM, Ma JX. Harm effect distances evaluation of severe accidents for gaseous hydrogen refueling station. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010; 35(3):1515-21.
Zarei E, Jafari MJ, Dormohammadi A, Sarsangi V. The Role of Modeling and Consequence Evaluation in Improving Safety Level of Industrial Hazardous Installations: A Case Study: Hydrogen Production Unit. Iran Occup Health 2013; 10 (6): 54-69.
Jafari MJ, Zarei E, Badri N. The Quantitative Risk Assessment of a Hydrogen Generation Unit. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012; 37(24):19241-49.
Dormohammadi A, Zarei E, Delkhosh MB. Gholami A. Risk analysis by means of a QRA approach on a LPG cylinder filling installation. Process Saf Prog 2014, 33(1): 77–84.
Lees FP. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 3rd ed, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2005.
Det Norske Veritas (DNV). H2 release and jet dispersion-validation of PHAST and KFX, Report for DNV research CT1910.DNV energy. April 2008.
Jafari M, Zarei E, Dormohammadi A. Presentation of a method for consequence modeling and quantitative risk assessment of fire and explosion in process industry (Case study: Hydrogen Production Process). J Health Saf Work 2013; 3 (1):55-68
Health and Safety Authority (HSA). Policy & approach of the health & safety authority to COMAH risk based land-use planning. HAS. 19 March 2010.
American Petroleum Institute (API). Management of hazards associated with location of process plant portable buildings. APIRP 752. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C, API. 2007.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Guidelines for Evaluation Process Plant Building for external Explosions and Fire .1st ed, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), New York, USA, 1996.
Yousefzadegan MS, Masoudi MA, Ashtiani YK, Kambarani M. Consequence Analysis for probable accidents of filter separators installed in Gas Pressure Reduction Stations, 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Development IPCBEE vol.4. IACSIT Press, 14-15 June 2011; Singapore, Malaysia.
European Industrial Gases Association. Determination of safety distances. Doc 75/07/E. Brussels. EIGA. Jun 2007.
NASA. Safety Standard for hydrogen and hydrogen systems. In: Guidelines for hydrogen system design, material selection, operation, storage and transportation. Report No: NSS 1740-16. 1997.
|Issue||Vol 6 No 3 (2014)|
|Hydrogen Accident Prevention Chemical Hazard Release Fires Explosions|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|