P.G. Belov, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Prof., firstname.lastname@example.org MAI (NIU), Moscow, Russia
By the example of graph-analytic models of the specific cascade accident and the event initiating it, the possibility of a priori assessment of their risk and the effect from implementation of optimal solutions on risk reduction is demonstrated in the article. The object of the study is the plant for liquefied natural gas production, and the initiating event is the leak of the substance due to loss of structural integrity. In this case, the possibility of the formation of air-fuel mixture of the explosive concentration was taken into account, and the fragments and compression wave from probable explosion, as well as the thermal and toxic effects of fire were considered the hazardous factors of the cascade accident.
Alternative solutions on risk reduction are modeled by the barriers on the way of occurrence of the initiating event and its development with a domino effect manifestation. Specific constructive-technological and organizational-technical solutions are proposed that are aimed at reducing the probabilities of occurrence of errors and unauthorized personnel actions, failures and equipment faults, and off-design external effects. The effect is estimated on reduction of the probability of the initiating event and reduction of the expected damage from the cascade accident.
When carrying out the calculations, the ARBITR software package was used to facilitate the quantitative assessment of the considered factors and recommendations. Collection of some part of the input data was simplified, which were necessary for the prediction of the absolute value of the cascade risk before implementation of proposals on its reduction. The latter is justified both by the fundamental impossibility of the accurate risk assessment for such a complicated process of manifesting the relevant sources, and by a higher reliability of forecasting those relative changes in cascade risk that do not go beyond the limits of risk real values.
1. Petrosyants Je.V. Prevention of major accidents. Practical guide. Moscow: MP «Rarog», 1992. 256 p. (In Russ.).
2. Lauridsen K., Kozine I., Markert F., Amendola A., Christou M., Fiori M. Assessment of Uncertainties in Risk Analysis of Chemical Establishments. The Assurance project. Available at: http://riskprom.ru/_ld/2/265_ris-r-1344.pdf (accessed: October 10, 2018).
3. Belov P.G. Aprior risk assessment of the cascade accidents by modeling. Bezopasnost truda v promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2018. № 10. pp. 66–73. DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2018-10-66-73. (In Russ.).
4. Gelfand B.E., Silnikov M.V. Explosion safety. 3-e izd., dop. Saint-Petersburg: Politekhnika, 2018. 380 p. (In Russ.).
5. Gubinelli G., Cozzani V. Assessment of missile hazards: evaluation of the Fragment Number and Drag Factors. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2009. Vol. 161. Iss. 1. pp. 439–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.116
6. Baker W., Cox P., Westine P., Kulesz J., Strehlow R. Explosive Phenomena. Assessment and Consequences. In 2 books. Book 1. Moscow: Mir, 1986. 319 p. (In Russ.).
7. Baker W., Cox P., Westine P., Kulesz J., Strehlow R. Explosive Phenomena. Assessment and Consequences. In 2 books. Book 2. Moscow: Mir, 1986. 384 p. (In Russ.).
8. Mingguang Z., Juncheng J. An improved probit method for assessment of domino effect to chemical process equipment caused by overpressure. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2008. Vol. 158. № 2–3. pp. 280–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.01.076
9. Safonov V.S., Petrulevich A.A., Ovcharov S.V., Melnikov A.V. Analysis and Assessment of Technical Solutions Feasibility for LNG Production and Sea Transportation. Moscow: OOO «Gazprom VNIIGAZ», 2009. 464 p. (In Russ.).
10. Methods for the calculation of physical effects due to releases of hazardous materials (liquids and gases): Yellow Book. Available at: http://content.publicatiereeksgevaarlijkestoffen.nl/documents/PGS2/PGS2-1997-v0.1-physical-effects.pdf (accessed: October 10, 2018).
11. Romeev O.A., Kornienko V.P. Fundamentals of the Theory of Multi-criteria Evaluation of the Objects with Multi-level Structure of Efficiency Indicators. Moscow: MAX Press, 2018. 416 p. (In Russ.).
12. GOST R ISO/IEK 31010—2011. Risk management. Risk assessment methods. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200090083 (accessed: October 10, 2018). (In Russ.).
13. Methodology for the consequences assessment of fuel-air mixtures emergency explosions: Safety Guide. Ser. 27. Iss. 15. Moscow: ZAO NTTs PB, 2017. 44 p. (In Russ.).
14. Software for industrial safety: TOXI+Risk 5. Available at: https://toxi.ru/produkty/programmnyi-kompleks-toxirisk-5 (accessed: August 30, 2018). (In Russ.).
15. McConnell R.A. The use of slam shut valves on LCA plants. Process Safety Progress. 1997. Vol. 16. № 2. pp. 61–68.
16. Ivashchenko I.N., Ivashchenko K.I. Cost assessment of social damage caused by the accident, and safety of structures. Problemy analiza riska = Issues of Risk Analysis. 2016. Vol. 3. № 1. pp. 12–22. (In Russ.).
17. ARBITR software package. Available at: https://szma.com/pkasm.shtml (accessed: August 30, 2018). (In Russ.).
18. Belov P.G. Risk Management, System Analysis and Modeling. Moscow: Yurayt, 2014. 728 p. (In Russ.).