alexa A risk-based approach to flammable gas detector spacing.
Geology & Earth Science

Geology & Earth Science

Journal of Geology & Geophysics

Author(s): Defriend S, Dejmek M, Porter L, Deshotels B, Natvig B

Abstract Share this page

Abstract Flammable gas detectors allow an operating company to address leaks before they become serious, by automatically alarming and by initiating isolation and safe venting. Without effective gas detection, there is very limited defense against a flammable gas leak developing into a fire or explosion that could cause loss of life or escalate to cascading failures of nearby vessels, piping, and equipment. While it is commonly recognized that some gas detectors are needed in a process plant containing flammable gas or volatile liquids, there is usually a question of how many are needed. The areas that need protection can be determined by dispersion modeling from potential leak sites. Within the areas that must be protected, the spacing of detectors (or alternatively, number of detectors) should be based on risk. Detector design can be characterized by spacing criteria, which is convenient for design - or alternatively by number of detectors, which is convenient for cost reporting. The factors that influence the risk are site-specific, including process conditions, chemical composition, number of potential leak sites, piping design standards, arrangement of plant equipment and structures, design of isolation and depressurization systems, and frequency of detector testing. Site-specific factors such as those just mentioned affect the size of flammable gas cloud that must be detected (within a specified probability) by the gas detection system. A probability of detection must be specified that gives a design with a tolerable risk of fires and explosions. To determine the optimum spacing of detectors, it is important to consider the probability that a detector will fail at some time and be inoperative until replaced or repaired. A cost-effective approach is based on the combined risk from a representative selection of leakage scenarios, rather than a worst-case evaluation. This means that probability and severity of leak consequences must be evaluated together. In marine and offshore facilities, it is conventional to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling to determine the size of a flammable cloud that would result from a specific leak scenario. Simpler modeling methods can be used, but the results are not very accurate in the region near the release, especially where flow obstructions are present. The results from CFD analyses on several leak scenarios can be plotted to determine the size of a flammable cloud that could result in an explosion that would generate overpressure exceeding the strength of the mechanical design of the plant. A cloud of this size has the potential to produce a blast pressure or flying debris capable of causing a fatality or subsequent damage to vessels or piping containing hazardous material. In cases where the leak results in a fire, rather than explosion, CFD or other modeling methods can estimate the size of a leak that would cause a fire resulting in subsequent damage to the facility, or would prevent the safe escape of personnel. The gas detector system must be capable of detecting a gas release or vapor cloud, and initiating action to prevent the leak from reaching a size that could cause injury or severe damage upon ignition. This article was published in J Hazard Mater and referenced in Journal of Geology & Geophysics

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords