| Literature DB >> 30889859 |
Hyo Eun Lee1, Seok J Yoon2, Jong-Ryeul Sohn3, Da-An Huh4, Bong Woo Lee5, Kyong Whan Moon6.
Abstract
Benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX) are flammable substances used in a wide range of raw materials and products. Chemical accidents caused by flammable substances are different from leakage accidents of toxic materials. Initial explosions and fires may cause secondary or tertiary explosions, or fires with nearby flammable materials. This is called the domino effect. In cases of leakage accidents, it is possible to prevent accidents through early control of the leakage to the outside or by bypassing, but it is difficult to cope with explosions because they occur instantaneously. To prevent explosions due to the domino effect, a safety distance must be set. Safety distances vary widely by country. In the case of the United States (US) or the European Union (EU), safety distances are set in various ways depending on the chemical industry and the amount of flammable substances being handled. However, countries such as Korea, Taiwan, and Dubai have comprehensive regulation, and the safety distances are small. In this study, we simulated the range of overpressure at which other chemical equipment could explode when an explosion occurs in a flammable BTX storage tank. There are three types of analysis methods of vapor cloud explosion. PHAST (Process Hazard Analysis Software Tool) and ALOHA (Areal Location of Hazardous Atmosphere) were selected to model explosions using three methods (trinitrotoluene equivalence method, the Netherlands Organization multi-energy method, and Baker-Strehlow-Tang method). The results indicated that the safety distances in the US and EU showed low probability of a domino effect, but those in Korea, Dubai, and Taiwan could lead to a secondary explosions. Therefore, it is necessary to propose a reasonable method to determine safety distances considering the amount and physicochemical characteristics of the flammable substances being used.Entities:
Keywords: Areal Location of Hazardous Atmosphere; BTX; Process Hazard Analysis Software Tool; domino explosion; safety distance; vapor cloud explosion
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30889859 PMCID: PMC6466150 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16060969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Physicochemical properties of benzene, toluene, and xylene.
| Chemical Name | Benzene | Toluene | Xylene |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAS No. | 71-43-2 | 108-88-3 | 1330-20-7 |
| Molecular Formula | C6H6 | C7H8 | C8H10 |
| Molecular Weight | 78.11 | 92.14 | 106.16 |
| Flash Point (°C) | −11 (closed cup) | 4 (closed cup) | 17 (closed cup) 1 |
| Ignition Temperature | 580 | 480 | 463 1; 528 2; 527 3 |
| Explosion Limit (%) | 1.2–7.8 | 1.27–7.80 | 0.9–6.7 1 |
1o-xylene; 2m-xylene; 3p-xylene.
Safety distance standard and summary in each country.
| Country | Safety Distance (m) | Set Criteria Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Korea | 20 | Occupational Safety and Health Act (20 m) and Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act (10 m) [ |
| China | 1000 | Article 6 of the Requirements and Technical Standards for Hazardous Chemical Firms: 500 m if safety measures are recognized [ |
| US | 300–1000 | Separation Distances Between Industrial and Sensitive Land Uses: |
| England | 18–500 | Explosives Regulations Health and Safety Executive: |
| Dubai | 11 1 | Regulation DD-19.0: Hazardous/Dangerous Chemical Storage Warehouse [ |
| Taiwan | 20 | Public Hazardous Substances & Flammable Pressurized Gases Establishment Standards & Safety Control Regulations [ |
Determination of the influence of explosion overpressure.
| Overpressure | Effect | |
|---|---|---|
| kPa | Psi | |
| 0.15 | 0.02 | Noise generation |
| 0.2 | 0.03 | Partial breakage of windows |
| 1 | 0.15 | Glass rupture pressure |
| 2 | 0.3 | 10 % damage to the roof and windows of the house |
| 5 | 0.7 | Structural damage of houses |
| 7 | 1 | Some damage to the house (unrecoverable) |
| 15 | 2 | The wall and roof of the house are slightly damaged |
| 20 | 3 | The steel structure of the building is damaged and deviates from the foundation |
| 24 | 3.5 | Damage to steel structures or storage tanks |
| 30 | 4 | Damage to factory buildings |
| 35–50 | 5–7 | Complete destruction of the house |
| 50–55 | 7–8 | Brick wall with a thickness of 20–30 cm collapses |
| 60 | 9 | Total breakage of large heavy lorry |
| 70 | 10 | Most buildings destroyed |
Modeling conditions.
| Type of Storage Tank | Vertical Tank |
|---|---|
| Storage tank size | 2 m 1 and 4 m 2 |
| Size of piping (diameter of orifice) | 50 mm |
| Air temperature (°C), wind speed (m/s), and humidity (%) during leak | 25, 1.5, and 50 |
| Atmospheric stability of Pasquil | D |
| Standard overpressure | 24kPa (3.5 psi) |
1 Radius; 2 Height.
Pasquil atmospheric stability.
| Wind Speed (m/s) | Day | Night | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radiation Intensity | |||||
| Strong | Moderate | Slight | Cloudy | Sunny | |
| <2 | A | A–B | B | F | F |
| 2–3 | A–B | B | C | E | F |
| 3–5 | B | B–C | C | D | E |
| 5–6 | C | C–D | D | D | D |
| >6 | C | D | D | D | D |
Figure 1Relationship between scaled distance and overpressure (trinitrotoluene).
Overpressure distance comparison.
| Method | Overpressure (kPa) | Overpressure Distance (m) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benzene | Toluene | Xylene | ||
| TNT equivalence method | 24 | 144 | 138 | 22 |
| 7 | 272 | 252 | 42 | |
| TNO multi-energy method | 24 | 161 | 102 | 45 |
| 7 | 243 | 171 | 76 | |
| BST method | 24 | 133 | 86 | 13 |
| 7 | 217 | 123 | 25 | |
Figure 2Overpressure distance graph (a) BST method for benzene 133 m (b) BST method for toluene 86 m (c) BST method for xylene 13 m(d) TNO multi-energy method for benzene 161 m (e) TNO multi-energy method for toluene 102 m (f) TNO multi-energy method for xylene 45 m.
Comparison of the possibility of a domino explosion in each country.
| Country | Safety Distance (m) | Benzene Overpressure Distance (146 m) | Toluene Overpressure Distance (108 m) | Xylene Overpressure Distance (26 m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korea | 20 | + 1 | + 1 | + 1 |
| China | 1000 | - 2 | - 2 | - 2 |
| US | 1000 | - 2 | - 2 | - 2 |
| England | 877 | - 2 | - 2 | - 2 |
| Dubai | 15 | + 1 | + 1 | + 1 |
| Taiwan | 30 | + 1 | + 1 | - |
1 Possible domino explosion; 2 Domino explosion is unlikely.
Figure 3(a) Tank farm layout and (b) domino effect explosion scenario.