A New Conceptual Model for Quantitative Fire Risk Assessment of Oil Storage Tanks in the Tehran Refinery, Iran

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 West Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of Biological Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to introduce and describe a model for Fire Quantitative Risk Assessment of in petroleum Storage Tanks. A novel model was designed to determine the risk of a fire occurrence using of Loss Causation and Swiss cheese models. Then, based on FTA, model and its integration with our initial proposed model, the final model was obtained for fire hazard determination in hydrocarbon tanks. The risk level of the hazard was identified using the energy trace and barrier analysis (ETBA). The quantitative fire risk assessment in the tank were carried out in accordance to the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (IOGP) guideline. Base on the results, 22 risks were identified which 4 of them were unacceptable risks and corrective action was proposed for them. This method is commonly used in conjunction with the safety analysis of the system. This technique was the final part of this research.

Keywords

References

Abul-Haggag, O.Y., Barakat, W. (2013). Application of Fuzzy Logic for Risk Assessment using Risk Matrix. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3(1).
Ahmadi, O., Mortazavi, S. B., Pasdarshahri, H., and Mohabadi, H. A. (2019). Consequence analysis of large-scale pool fire in oil storage terminal based on computational fluid dynamic (CFD). Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 123, 379-389.
Amyotte, P.R., and Oehmen, A.M. (2002). Application of a Loss Causation Model to the Westray Mine Explosion. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 80(1), 55-59.
Bird, F. E., and Germain, G. L. (1996). Practical loss control leadership. Georgia: Det Norske Veritas (USA).
Cheliyan, A.S., Bhattacharyya, S.K. (2018). Fuzzy fault tree analysis of oil and gas leakage in subsea production systems. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 1-11.
Dadashzadeh, M., Kashkarov, S., Makarov, D and Molkov, V. (2018). Risk assessment methodology for onboard hydrogen storage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43, 6462 – 6475.
Fu, S., Yan, X., Zhang, D., Li, C. and Zio, E. (2016). Framework for the quantitative assessment of the risk of leakage from LNG-fueled vessels by an event tree-CFD. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 43, 42 -52.
Ibrahim, H. A., and Syed, H. S. (2018). Hazard Analysis of Crude Oil Storage Tank Farm. International Journal of Chem Tech Research (pp. 300-308).
Jafari, M. J., Zarei, M., and Movahhedi, M. (2012). The Credit of Fire and Explosion Index for Risk Assessment of Iso-Max Unit in an Oil Refinery. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene, 4, 10-16.
Jensen, N. (2007). Modifying the Dow Fire & Explosion Index for Use in Assessing Hazard and Risk of Experimental Setups in Research Laboratories. 12th International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries" - Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Mohammadfam, I, .Mahmoudi, S., and Kianfar, A. (2012). Comparative safety assessment of chlorination unit in Tehran treatment plants with HAZOP & ETBA techniques. Procedia Engineering 45, 27–30.
Moshashaei, P. and Alizadeh, S. (2016). Fire Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of the Methodology and Functional Areas. Iranian Journal of Health, Safety & Environment, 4(1), 654-669.
Pramanathan, S. S., Tauseef, S. M., Kumar, D., and Mohanty, P. N. K. (2018). Quantitative Assessment of Risk Caused by Domino Accidents in Chemical Process Industries. In Advances in Fire and Process Safety (pp. 45-55). Springer, Singapore.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russoa, P., De Marcoa, A., Mazzarob, M. and Capobianco, L. (2018). Quantitative Risk Assessment on a Hydrogen Refuelling Station. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 67, 739-744.
Šakėnaitė, J. (2010). A Comparison of Methods Used for Fire Safety Evaluation. Mokslas – Lietuvos Ateitis, 2(6).
Shapiro, A. F & Koissi, M. C. (2015). Risk Assessment Applications of Fuzzy Logic. Casualty Actuarial Society, Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Society of Actuaries.
Suhaimi, N. S. and Mustapha, S. (2016). A Review of Fire Risk Assessment Tools in Compartment. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(11), 7284-7287. 
Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, T., Pompapathi, V., and Abbasi, S. A. (2018). Case studies of 28 major accidents of fires/explosions in storage tank farms in the backdrop of available codes/standards/models for safely configuring such tank farms. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 120, 331-338.
Török, Z., Petrescu-Mag, R. M., Mereuță, A., Maloș, C. V., Arghiuș, V. I., and Ozunu, A. (2019). Analysis of territorial compatibility for Seveso-type sites using different risk assessment methods and GIS technique. Land Use Policy.
Wajdi Akashah, F., Anak Kayan, B. and Haniza Ishak, N. (2013). Quantitative Risk Assessment for Performance-Based Building Fire Regulation. The 3rd International Building Control Conference, Kuala Lumpur, November 21, 2013. 
Wang, T., Li, Y., Xie, T., Liu, Y., and Zhu, X. (2018). Analysis on Dangerous Source of Large Safety Accident in Storage Tank Area. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (108 (4), p. 042044). IOP Publishing.
Wei, T., Qian, X. and Yuan, M. (2018). Quantitative risk assessment of direct lightning strike on external floating roof tank. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 56, 191-203.
Environmental Energy and Economic Research
Volume 4, Issue 3
August 2020
Pages 241-249

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics