QuanRiskAssessment and Consequence Modelling-Student Material
QuanRiskAssessment and Consequence Modelling-Student Material
QuanRiskAssessment and Consequence Modelling-Student Material
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Concept Definitions
A hazardous event (undesirable event) requires an initiating event or failure and then either
failure of or lack of safeguards to prevent the realisation of the hazardous event.
Concept Definitions
2
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Concept Definitions
Risk
Example
Storage tank Loss of life/ property,
with Spill and Fire Environmental damage,
flammable Damage to reputation of
material facility
3
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Concept Definitions
Risk
4
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Preparedness,
Prevention Mitigation,
Land Use Planning,
Response, Recovery
5
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Quantifying Risk
Risk – A measure of human injury, environmental damage or economic loss in
terms of both the frequency and the magnitude of the loss or injury.
Rh Consequencei, of Frequencyi, of
Risk from an undesirable event, h consequence i from
undesirable event h
event, h
where i is each consequence
6
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Quantifying Risk
If more than one type of receptor can be impacted by an event, then the
total risk from an undesirable event can be calculated as:
Rh
Consequencei, of Frequencyi, of
Risk from an
undesirable undesirable event, h consequence i, from
event, h event h
Risk Assessment
8
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Risk Assessment
9
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Depending on the location of the vessel, release may occur from a fixed facility or
during transportation (truck, rail, ship, barge, pipeline) over land or water.
10
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
11
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
12
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
17
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
18
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
The type of material and containment conditions will govern source strength.
Combustion Basics
20
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Flammability
Ignition – A flammable material may be ignited by the combination of a fuel and
oxidant in contact with an ignition source. OR, if a flammable gas is sufficiently
heated, the gas can ignite.
Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE) – Smallest energy input needed to start
combustion. Typical MIE of hydrocarbons is 0.25 mJ. To place this in perspective,
the static discharge from walking across a carpet is 22 mJ; an automobile spark
plug is 25 mJ!
Auto-Ignition Temperature – The temperature threshold above which enough
energy is available to act as an ignition source.
Flash Point of a Liquid – The lowest temperature at which a liquid gives off
sufficient vapour to form an ignitable mixture with air.
23
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Combustion Definitions
Explosion – Rapid expansion of gases resulting in a rapidly moving pressure or
shock wave.
Physical Explosion – Results from the sudden failure of a vessel containing
high-pressure non-reactive gas.
Confined Explosion – Occurs within a vessel, a building, or a confined space.
Unconfined Explosion– Occurs in the open. Typically the result of a flammable gas
release in a congested area.
Boiling-Liquid Expanding-Vapour Explosions – Occurs if a vessel containing a
liquid above its atmospheric pressure boiling point suddenly ruptures.
Dust Explosion – Results from the rapid combustion of fine solid particles
suspended in air.
24
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
25
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
• Line Fires
• Flash Fires
26
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
27
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
The Effects
28
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Pool Fires
Heat radiation
from flames
Storage Tank
Pool of flammable Liquid from tank
Dyke
30
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Pool Fires
SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW
First Degree Burns
1% Fatalities Due to
Heat Radiation
31
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
32
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
hf [m]
33
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Explosion Modelling
39
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Explosion Modelling
The results from the TNT approach can then be used to
1. Predict the pressure profile vs distance for the explosion.
2. Assess the consequences of the explosion on human health or objects
• PROBIT
• Damage effect methods
41
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=UM0jtD_OWLU&feature=youtu.be
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?
v=41QMaJqxqIo&feature=you
tu.be
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Jg7mLSG-Yws&feature=youtu.be
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Consequence Models
These models are used to estimate the extent of potential damage caused by a
hazardous event. These consist of 3 parts:
1. Source Term – The strength of source releases are estimated.
2. Hazard Levels or Effects –Hazard level at receptor points can be estimated for
an accident.
• Fire: A hazard model will estimate thermal radiation as a function of distance from the
source.
• Explosion: A hazard model will estimate the extent of overpressure. NO concentrations of
chemical are estimated.
3. Consequences – Potential damage is estimated. Consequence of interest will
be specific to each receptor type (humans, buildings, process equipment, glass).
48
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Source models describe the physical and chemical processes occurring during
the release of a material. A release could be an outflow from a vessel,
evaporation from a liquid pool, etc.
The physical state of the material (solid, liquid, gas) together with the
containment pressure and temperature will govern source strength.
49
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
51
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Ambient Conditions
We can consider a tank that develops a
hole. Pressure of the liquid contained in the
tank is converted into kinetic energy as it
Liquid drains from the hole. Frictional forces of
the liquid draining through the hole convert
some of the kinetic energy to thermal
energy.
52
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
where
Liquid Ambient Conditions
Pg = gauge pressure
P = Pg P = 1 atm u = average fluid
utank = 0 uambient = u velocity (m/s)
Δz = 0 A = leak area (m2) Δz = height
Ws = 0 Ws = shaft work
ρ = ρliquid G = 9.81 m/s2
53
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
54
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Ambient Conditions
Liquid Pressurised in
a Tank We can consider a tank that develops a hole.
Pressure of the liquid contained in the tank is
Utank = 0
converted into kinetic energy as it drains from the
hole. Frictional forces of the liquid draining through
the hole convert some of the kinetic energy to
thermal energy.
ρ = ρliquid
56
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
where
Ambient Conditions
Liquid Pressurised in
Gauge Pressure
a Tank
Average Instantaneous
uambient = u Velocity of Fluid Flow
[length/time]
Gravitational Constant
57
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Liquid Pressurised in
a Tank
58
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
59
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
60
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
62
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
63
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
64
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Toxic combustion products can adversely effect many types of people (employees,
emergency responders, residents) and the environment (air, groundwater, soil).
66
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Consequence Models
67
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Duration of Release
Instantaneous
Concentration
Average
Surface heat flux determines the stability of the atmosphere: stable, unstable or
neutral.
Positive Heat Flux - Heat absorbed by the ground due to radiation from the sun
- Air masses are heated by heat transfer from the ground
69
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Free Atmosphere
• Heat fluxes range
from -5 to -30 W/m2
Accumulation Layer
• Occurs at night or
with snow cover
Wind • Vertical movement
Profile Mixing is supressed
Turbulent Layer Height
• Turbulence is
100 m caused by the wind
Ground
70
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Distance from
Source
Concentration
Distance from
Source
Concentration
72
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Free Atmosphere
• Heat fluxes range
Entrainment Layer from 5 to
• 400 W/m2
Elevation
Distance from
Source
Concentration
74
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Free Atmosphere
• Occurs under
cloudy or windy
conditions
• There is a well-
Wind mixed boundary
layer.
Profile Mixing
Turbulent Layer Height • Vertical motions
are not suppressed.
500 m
• Turbulence is
caused by the wind.
Ground
75
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Elevation
Distance from
Source
Concentration
76
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
H
y h
where
78
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Day Night
Surface Wind
Speed, U Incoming Solar Radiation Thinly Cloud
[m/sec] Overcast Coverage
Strong Moderate Slight
<2 A A-B B
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
82
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
F b 55 m / s
4 2
where and
83
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
84
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
85
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
These gases have the potential to travel far distances without dispersing to ‘safe’
levels.
86
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
87
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
88
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
90
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
91
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
93
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
94
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
95
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
PROBIT
Percentage
96
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
97
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
PROBIT
98
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
OR
PROBIT
99
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
100
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Determine the percentage of people that will die from burns caused by a
pool fire. The PROBIT value for this fire is 4.39.
Solution 1
Using the PROBIT table, the percentage is 27%.
Solution 2
Using the PROBIT equation, we can solve for P with Y=4.39. The error function can
be found using spreadsheets available in the literature.
101
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Solution
Convert the percentage to the PROBIT variable using the PROBIT table.
Percent Affected Peak Overpressure (N m-2) PROBIT
1 16,500 2.67
10 19,300 3.72
50 43,500 5.00
90 84,300 6.28
103
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
104
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
12.5 Minimum energy required for piloted ignition of wood, melting of plastic tubing
9.5 Pain threshold reached after 8 seconds; second degree burns after 20 seconds
Sufficient to cause pain to personnel if unable to reach cover within 20 seconds; however, blistering of the
4
skin is likely (second degree burn) ; 0% lethality
105
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Overpressure
Psig kPa
Observed Damage Effect
Damage Effect Estimates –
0.02 0.14 Annoying noise (137 dB if of low frequency, 10–15 Hz)
0.03
0.04
0.21
0.28
Occasional breaking of large glass windows already under
Loud noise (143 dB), sonic boom, glass failure
Overpressure
0.1 0.69 Breakage of small windows under strain
0.15 1.03 Typical pressure for glass breakage
0.3 2.07 “Safe distance” (probability 0.95 of no serious damage below this value); projectile limit; some damage to house ceilings; 10% window glass broken
0.4 2.76 Limited minor structural damage
0.5–1.0 3.4–6.9 Large and small windows usually shatter; occasional damage to window frames
0.7 4.8 Minor damage to house structures
1 6.9 Partial demolition of houses, made uninhabitable
Corrugated asbestos shatters; corrugated steel or aluminum panels, fastenings fail, followed by buckling; wood panels (standard housing), fastenings
1–2 6.9–13.8
fail, panels blow in
1.3 9 Steel frame of clad building slightly distorted
2 13.8 Partial collapse of walls and roofs of houses
2–3 13.8–20.7 Concrete or cinder block walls, not reinforced, shatter
2.3 15.8 Lower limit of serious structural damage
2.5 17.2 50% destruction of brickwork of houses
3 20.7 Heavy machines (3000 lb) in industrial buildings suffer little damage; steel frame buildings distort and pull away from foundations
3–4 20.7–27.6 Frameless, self-framing steel panel buildings demolished; rupture of oil storage tanks
4 27.6 Cladding of light industrial buildings ruptures
5 34.5 Wooden utility poles snap; tall hydraulic presses (40,000 lb) in buildings slightly damaged
5–7 34.5–48.2 Nearly complete destruction of houses
7 48.2 Loaded train wagons overturned
7–8 48.2–55.1 Brick panels, 8–12 in thick, not reinforced, fail by shearing or flexure
9 62 Loaded train boxcars completely demolished
10 68.9 Probable total destruction of buildings; heavy machine tools (7000 lb) moved and badly damaged, very heavy machine tools (12,000 lb) survive
300 2068 Limit of crater lip
106
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
107
Hazardous Modelling Quantitative
Risk Final
Review Material Frequency
Consequence Source Hazard Effect Estimation Thoughts
Release Analysis
Solution
Using the table on Observed Damage Effects table – an overpressure of
25 kPa will cause the steel panels of a building to be demolished.
108