Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a framework for dynamic risk assessment of environmental impacts in chemicals warehouse using CFD-BN

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Chemical warehouses are one of the high-risk areas in the process industries due to the high diversity and quantity of stored chemicals. Risk assessment is a useful tool for developing appropriate strategies to prevent and control the risks. In this study, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and Bayesian network (BN) approaches were proposed for dynamic risk assessment. Initially, bow tie (BT) method was used for identifying basic events and modeling the consequences. In order to determine the consequences intensity (heat flux and CO and CO2 concentration), fire dynamics simulator (FDS) and solid flame model were used. A total of 21 causes or failures were identified in the chemical spills, 13 cases of which were related to basic events. Out of the identified causes, the forklift and drum strike basic event had the most contribution of the chemical spills in the warehouse, and the probability of the major spill event scenario 1.25495E−11 was estimated by Bayesian networks. The estimated risk by CFD in combination with BN, after updating, is unacceptable compared to the UK risk criterion. Bayesian networks and CFD approach for dynamic assessment of environmental impact risk in chemical warehouses provide the capability to quantitatively and dynamically assess the consequences of chemical spills by modeling its cause and effect in the warehouse. Based on the results of this method, effective preventive measures can be taken to control the consequences of chemical spills in the warehouse.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CFD:

Computational fluid dynamics

BN:

Bayesian network

BT:

Bow tie

FDS:

Fire dynamics simulator

LNG:

Liquefied natural gas

EFMEA:

Environmental failure mode and effects analysis

FMEA:

Failure mode and effects analysis

DGA:

Diglycolamine

CoA:

Center of area

CFP:

Crisp failure probability

OREDA:

Odisha renewable energy development agency

ExLOPA:

Explosion layer of protection analysis

CFP:

Failure probability

FTA:

Fault tree analysis

ETA:

Event tree analysis

FST:

Fuzzy set theory

BE:

Basic event

NIST:

National institute of standards and technology

BEVI:

Besluit externe veiligheid inrichtingen

RSME:

Root-mean-square error

IDLH:

Immediately dangerous to life or health

FDS:

Fire dynamics simulator

CCPS:

Center for chemical process safety

Z i :

Fuzzy failure possibility for BEi

W j :

Weight of experts i

f ij :

Fuzzy number of BEi obtained from expert j

m:

Total number of events

n:

Total number of experts

FP:

Fuzzy probability

CFP:

Fuzzy possibility

K:

Constant value

FPS:

Fuzzy possibility scores of fuzzy number

X * :

Defuzzified output

x :

Output variable

\( \mu_{{\tilde{A}}} (x) \) :

Membership function

C p :

Specific heat at constant pressure (kJ.kg−1 K−1)

χr :

Radiative fraction

t :

Time (s)

q :

Thermal radiation (Kw/m2)

P :

Probability of death

u :

Integration variable

N :

Number of deaths (persons/m2)

D p :

Population distribution (persons/m2)

A:

Compacted area

Y :

Probit function

D * :

Characteristic fire diameter (m)

ρ :

Density (kg/m3)

T :

Temperature (K)

g :

Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)

T a :

Ambient temperature (K)

References

  • Ahmadi O, Mortazavi SB, Pasdarshahri H, Mohabadi HA (2019) Consequence analysis of large-scale pool fire in oil storage terminal based on computational fluid dynamic (CFD). Process Saf Environ Prot 123:379–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • AIChE C (2000) Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Assael MJ, Kakosimos KE (2010) Fires, explosions, and toxic gas dispersions: effects calculation and risk analysis. CRC Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Association NOI (2004) Application of IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 in the Norwegian Petroleum Industry Norway: The Norwegian Oil Industry Association

  • Australian Standard A (2006) AS 1940–2004 (Incorporating Amendment Nos 1 and 2). The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids Sydney: Standards Australia

  • Babrauskas V (1975) COMPF: a program for calculating post-flashover fire temperatures

  • Benintendi R, Round S (2014) Design a safe hazardous materials warehouse Hydrocarbon Processing

  • Bubbico R, Lee S, Moscati D, Paltrinieri N (2020) Dynamic assessment of safety barriers preventing escalation in offshore Oil&Gas. Saf Sci 121:319–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucci P, Kirschenbaum J, Mangan LA, Aldemir T, Smith C, Wood T (2008) Construction of event-tree/fault-tree models from a Markov approach to dynamic system reliability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:1616–1627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell RB (2016) Structure fires in warehouse properties. National Fire Protection Association. Fire Analysis and Research Division

  • Casal J (2017) Evaluation of the effects and consequences of major accidents in industrial plants. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • CCPS C (1989) Guidelines for process equipment reliability data, with data tables. AIChE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal 19:187–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Haag PU, Ale B, Post J (2001) The ‘Purple Book’: guideline for quantitative risk assessment in the Netherlands. In: Loss prevention and safety promotion in the process industries. Elsevier, pp 1429–1438

  • Executive HaS (1992) The fire at Allied Colloids Limited. A report of the HSE’s investigation into the fire at Allied Colloids Ltd, Low Moorhttps://www.icheme.org/membership/communities/special-interest-groups/safety-and-loss-prevention/resources/hse-accident-reports/. Bradford

  • Executive HaS (1995) BASF, Wilton, Teesside. Retrieved from Health and Safety Executive Case studies. http://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/casebasf95.htm

  • Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P, Veitch B (2011) Fault and event tree analyses for process systems risk analysis: uncertainty handling formulations Risk Analysis: an. Int J 31:86–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank W, Jones D (2010) Choosing appropriate quantitative safety risk criteria: applications from the new CCPS guidelines. Process Saf Prog 29:293–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GmbH C (2020) Predict chemical and physical properties. Germany

  • Hansen OR, Davis SG, Gavelli F, Richardson J (2012) Benefits of CFD for onshore facility explosion studies. In: 8th Global congress on process safety

  • Hsieh P-P, Shen T-S, Ho S-P, Chen Y-J, Chang H-P, Lei M-Y (2018) A study on the application of automatic sprinkler systems in AS/RS warehouses in Taiwan. In: Asia-Oceania symposium on fire science and technology, Springer, pp 803–818

  • Huang D, Chen T, Wang M-JJ (2001) A fuzzy set approach for event tree analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 118:153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa A, Amagasa M, Shiga T, Tomizawa G, Tatsuta R, Mieno H (1993) The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets Syst 55:241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabbari M, Atabi F, Ghorbani R (2020) Key airborne concentrations of chemicals for emergency response planning in HAZMAT road transportation-margin of safety or survival. J Loss Preven Process Ind 6:104139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jozi SA, Seyfosadat SH (2014) Environmental risk assessment of Gotvand-Olia dam at operational phase using the integrated method of environmental failure mode and effects analysis (EFMEA) and preliminary hazard analysis. J Environ Stud 40:25

    Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P (2012) Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 104:36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P (2013a) Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network. Process Saf Environ Prot 91:46–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P (2013b) Quantitative risk analysis of offshore drilling operations: a Bayesian approach. Saf Science 57:108–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lees F (2012) Lees’ Loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Z, Du H, Bao C (2006) A review of current researches on blast load effects on building structures in China. Trans Tianjin Univ 12:35–41

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu X, Li J, Li X (2017) Study of dynamic risk management system for flammable and explosive dangerous chemicals storage area. J Loss Prev Process Ind 49:983–988

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luketa A (2011) Recommendations on the prediction of thermal hazard distances from large liquefied natural gas pool fires on water for solid flame models SAND2011-0495. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  • Markowski AS, Mannan MS, Kotynia A, Pawlak H (2011) Application of fuzzy logic to explosion risk assessment. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24:780–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlair G, Simonson M, Gann RG (2004) Environmental concerns of fires: facts, figures, questions and new challenges for the future

  • McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K (2013a) Fire dynamics simulator technical reference guide, Vol 1, mathematical model NIST special publication, p 175

  • McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K (2013b) Fire dynamics simulator user’s guide. NIST Special Publication, p 1019

  • Muniz MVP, Lima GBA, Caiado RGG, Quelhas OLG (2018) Bow tie to improve risk management of natural gas pipelines. Process Saf Progress 37:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz M, Planas E, Ferrero F, Casal J (2007) Predicting the emissive power of hydrocarbon pool fires. J Hazard Mater 144:725–729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Centre for External Safety J (2009) Reference manual bevi risk assessments, Version 3.2. http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/images/Reference-Manual-Bevi-Risk-Assessmentsversion-3-2.pdf

  • Nielsen TD, Jensen FV (2009) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi H (1981) Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 6:249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OGP (2010) Risk assessment data directory. https://www.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5310/d0f351a245f3b7cb13fcaee7cf63a651da19.pdf

  • Onisawa T (1988) An approach to human reliability in man-machine systems using error possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 27:87–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreda (1984) Offshore reliability data handbook. OREDA

  • Ouache R, Adham A (2014) Reliability quantitative risk assessment in engineering system using fuzzy bow-tie. Int J Current Engineer Technol 4:1117–1123

    Google Scholar 

  • Pio G, Carboni M, Iannaccone T, Cozzani V, Salzano E (2019) Numerical simulation of small-scale pool fires of LNG. J Loss Prev Process Ind 3:94

    Google Scholar 

  • Raj PK (2007) LNG fires: a review of experimental results, models and hazard prediction challenges. J Hazardous Mater 140:444–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramzali N, Lavasani MRM, Ghodousi J (2015) Safety barriers analysis of offshore drilling system by employing fuzzy event tree analysis. Saf Sci 78:49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reference Manual Bevi Risk Assessments version 3.2. (2009) National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Centre for External Safety. https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/Reference-Manual-Bevi-Risk-Assessments-version-3-2.pdf

  • Ren J, Jenkinson I, Wang J, Xu D, Yang J (2009) An offshore risk analysis method using fuzzy Bayesian network. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 131:52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren N, de Vries J, Zhou X, Chaos M, Meredith KV, Wang Y (2017) Large-scale fire suppression modeling of corrugated cardboard boxes on wood pallets in rack-storage configurations. Fire Saf J 91:695–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronza A, Vilchez J, Casal J (2007) Using transportation accident databases to investigate ignition and explosion probabilities of flammable spills. J Hazard Mater 146:106–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safety O, Administration H (2006) Materials handling and storage. OSHA

  • Sahu D, Kumar S, Jain S, Gupta A (2017) Full scale experimental and numerical studies on effect of ventilation in an enclosure diesel pool fire. In: Building simulation, Springer, vol 3, pp 351–364

  • Sellami I, Manescau B, Chetehouna K, de Izarra C, Nait-Said R, Zidani F (2018) BLEVE fireball modeling using fire dynamics simulator (FDS) in an algerian gas industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 54:69–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Service NZF (2001) The ecotoxic effects of fire-water runoff: part I: Literature review. http://www.fire.org.nz/Research/PublishedReports/Documents/2a6e4acb13e45a94afef2c9550adbd24.pdf

  • Shaluf IM, Abdullah SA (2011) Floating roof storage tank boilover. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suardin JA, McPhate AJ, Sipkema A, Childs M, Mannan MS (2009) Fire and explosion assessment on oil and gas floating production storage offloading (FPSO): an effective screening and comparison tool. Process Saf Environ Prot 87:147–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sugeno M, Kang G (1986) Fuzzy modelling and control of multilayer incinerator. Fuzzy Sets Syst 18:329–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun B, Guo K, Pareek VK (2014) Computational fluid dynamics simulation of LNG pool fire radiation for hazard analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 29:92–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tan JW, Garaniya V, Baalisampang T, Abbassi R, Khan F, Dadashzadeh M (2020) Modeling impacts of combustion products on humans in complex processing facilities. Process Saf Prog 39:e12114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tugnoli A, Gyenes Z, Van Wijk L, Christou M, Spadoni G, Cozzani V (2013) Reference criteria for the identification of accident scenarios in the framework of land use planning. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26:614–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnem J et al (2012) Risk modelling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 25:274–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Directorate HI Fire, Explosion and Risk Assessment Topic Guidance

  • Yazdi M, Kabir S (2017) A fuzzy Bayesian network approach for risk analysis in process industries. Process Saf Environ Prot 111:507–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdi M, Kabir S (2020) Fuzzy evidence theory and Bayesian networks for process systems risk analysis. Human Ecol Risk Assess Int J 26:57–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Z, Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P (2015) Risk analysis of dust explosion scenarios using Bayesian networks. Risk Anal 35:278–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1988) Fuzzy logic. Computer 21:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarei E, Jafari MJ, Badri N (2013) Risk assessment of vapor cloud explosions in a hydrogen production facility with consequence modeling

  • Zarei E, Jafari M, Dormohammadi A, Sarsangi V (2014) The role of modeling and consequence evaluation in improving safety level of industrial hazardous installations: a case study: hydrogen production unit Iran. Occup Health 10:29–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarei E, Mohammadfam I, Aliabadi MM, Jamshidi A, Ghasemi F (2016) Efficiency prediction of control room operators based on human reliability analysis and dynamic decision-making style in the process industry. Process Saf Prog 35:192–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarei E, Azadeh A, Khakzad N, Aliabadi MM, Mohammadfam I (2017) Dynamic safety assessment of natural gas stations using Bayesian network. J Hazard Mater 321:830–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zerrouki H, Smadi H (2017) Bayesian belief network used in the chemical and process industry: a review and application. J Fail Anal Prev 17:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study is a part of a Ph.D. dissertation which was funded by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran. Iran. Thanks are owed to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences for their financial and technical support. The study proposal was approved by the ethics committee prior to its execution (Project No: 9497/20).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    M. J. Jafari, M. Pouyakian & S. M. Hanifi

  2. Bioinformatics Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    A. khanteymoori

Authors
  1. M. J. Jafari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Pouyakian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. khanteymoori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. M. Hanifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Hanifi.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: Gobinath Ravindran.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jafari, M.J., Pouyakian, M., khanteymoori, A. et al. Development of a framework for dynamic risk assessment of environmental impacts in chemicals warehouse using CFD-BN. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18, 3189–3204 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-03040-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-03040-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation