Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study on Domino Probability of Spherical Tank Based on New Failure Model

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to use the residual strength theory to study the probability of a domino effect accident occurring following the explosion of a spherical tank. We build a novel domino effect accident probability model, using Monte Carlo methods to simulate the ejection of debris. At the same time, the velocity and velocity distribution of fragments ejecting from the upper and lower parts of the explosive spherical tank are obtained. Finally, the relationship between the volume of the exploding spherical tank and the target, the crater Angle (ψ0 and ϕ0) of debris impacting the target, the probability of target destruction and the risk of domino effect accidents are considered. The results show that the maximum speed of debris from the lower part of a spherical tank exceeds that from its upper part, and the hazard associated with the debris from the lower part cannot be ignored. With the same target volume and spacing, the probability of a domino effect accident caused by projectile debris from the upper half of an exploding spherical tank is higher than that from the lower half. As theψ0 value increases, the probability of target failure gradually decreases, and as the ϕ0 value decreases, the probability of target failure also gradually decreases. Moreover, with changes in ψ0 and ϕ0, the probabilities of destruction and the occurrence of a domino effect accident significantly change. The results of this paper can provide guidance for the risk assessment of oil and gas storage tanks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nguyen QB, Mebarki A, Saada RA, Mercier F, Reimeringer M (2009) Integrated probabilistic framework for domino effect and risk analysis. Adv Eng Software 40:892–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hauptmanns U (2001) A Monte-Carlo based procedure for treating the flight of missiles from tank explosions. PrEM 16:307–312

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hauptmanns U (2001) A procedure for analyzing the flight of missiles from explosions of cylindrical vessels. J Loss Prev Process Indust 14:395–402

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gubinelli G, Cozzani V (2009) Assessment of missile hazards: evaluation of the fragment number and drag factors. J Hazard Mater 161:439–449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gubinelli G, Cozzani V (2009) Assessment of missile hazards: Identification of reference fragmentation patterns. J Hazard Mater 163:1008–1018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gubinelli G, Zanelli S, Cozzani V (2004) A simplified model for the assessment of the impact probability of fragments. J Hazard Mater 116:175–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pula R, Khan FI, Veitch B, Amyotte PR (2007) A model for estimating the probability of missile impact: missiles originating from bursting horizontal cylindrical vessels. Process Saf Prog 26:129–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McGillivray A, Saw JL, Lisbona D, Wardman M, Bilio M (2014) A risk assessment methodology for high pressure CO2 pipelines using integral consequence modelling. J Process Saf Environ Protection 92:17–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferdous R, Khan FI, Veitch B, Amyotte PR (2007) Methodology for computer-aided fault tree analysis. J Process Saf Environ Protection. https://doi.org/10.1205/psep06002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kalantarnia M, Khan F, Hawboldt K (2010) Modelling of BP Texas City refinery accident using dynamic risk assessment approach. J Process Saf Environ Protection 88:191–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pietersen CM (1988) Analysis of the LPG-disaster in mexico city. J Hazard Mater 20:85–107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sun D, Jiang J, Zhang M, Wang Z (2015) Influence of the source size on domino effect risk caused by fragments. J Loss Prev Process Indust 35:211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun D, Jiang J, Zhang M, Wang Z, Huang G, Qiao J (2012) Parametric approach of the domino effect for structural fragments. J Loss Prev Process Indust 25:114–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mebarki A, Bao Nguyen Q, Mercier F, Ami Saada R, Reimeringer M (2008) Reliability analysis of metallic targets under metallic rods impact: towards a simplified probabilistic approach. J Loss Prev Process Indust 21:518–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mébarki A, Mercier F, Nguyen QB, Saada RA (2009) Structural fragments and explosions in industrial facilities. Part I: probabilistic description of the source terms. J Loss Prev Process Indust 22:408–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mébarki A, Nguyen QB, Mercier F (2009) Structural fragments and explosions in industrial facilities: Part II – Projectile trajectory and probability of impact. J Loss Prev Process Indust 22:417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sun D, Jiang J, Zhang M, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Cai L (2016) Investigation of multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments. J Loss Prev Process Indust 40:591–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baybutt P (2015) The treatment of domino effects in process hazard analysis. Process Saf Prog 34:220–227

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen XW, Li QM (2002) Deep penetration of a non-deformable projectile with different geometrical characteristics. Int J Impact Eng 27:619–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cozzani V, Tugnoli A, Salzano E (2009) The development of an inherent safety approach to the prevention of domino accidents. Accid Anal Prev 41:1216–1227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cozzani V, Tugnoli A, Salzano E (2007) Prevention of domino effect: From active and passive strategies to inherently safer design. J Hazard Mater 139:209–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Crawley FK (1999) The change in safety management for offshore oil and gas production systems. J Process Saf Environ Protection 77:143–148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Djelosevic M, Tepic G (2019) Identification of fragmentation mechanism and risk analysis due to explosion of cylindrical tank. J Hazard Mater 362:17–35

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Forrestal MJ, Tzou DY, Askari E, Longcope DB (1995) Penetration into ductile metal targets with rigid spherical-nose rods. Int J Impact Eng 16:699–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang D, Pan X-H, Hua M, Mébarki A, Jiang J-C (2019) Assessment of tanks vulnerability and domino effect analysis in chemical storage plants. J Loss Prev Process Indust 60:174–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Khakzad N (2015) Application of dynamic Bayesian network to risk analysis of domino effects in chemical infrastructures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 138:263–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kirchsteiger C (2002) Review of international industrial safety management frameworks. J Process Saf Environ Protection 80:235–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kourniotis SP, Kiranoudis CT, Markatos NC (2000) Statistical analysis of domino chemical accidents. J Hazard Mater 71:239–252

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Landucci G, Argenti F, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V (2015) Quantitative assessment of safety barrier performance in the prevention of domino scenarios triggered by fire. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 143:30–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Landucci G, Gubinelli G, Antonioni G, Cozzani V (2009) The assessment of the damage probability of storage tanks in domino events triggered by fire. Accid Anal Prev 41:1206–1215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Li QM, Chen XW (2003) Dimensionless formulae for penetration depth of concrete target impacted by a non-deformable projectile. Int J Impact Eng 28:93–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Li X, Chen G , Zhu H (2016) Quantitative risk analysis on leakage failure of submarine oil and gas pipelines using Bayesian network. J Process Safety Environmental Protection

  33. Lisi R, Consolo G, Maschio G, Milazzo MF (2015) Estimation of the impact probability in domino effects due to the projection of fragments. Process Saf Environ Prot 93:99–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Baum MR (1988) Disruptive failure of pressure vessels: preliminary design guidelines for fragment velocity and the extent of the hazard zone. J Pressure Vessel Technol 110:168–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Yazdi M, Kabir S (2017) A fuzzy Bayesian network approach for risk analysis in process industries. J Process Saf Environ Protection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mukhim ED, Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA (2017) Domino effect in chemical process industries triggered by overpressure—Formulation of equipment-specific probits. Process Saf Environ Prot 106:263–273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Vaidogas ER, Kisežauskienė L, Girnienė I (2016) The risk to structures built near roads and rails used for moving hazardous materials. J Civ Eng Manag 22:442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang X-m, Chen G-h (2009) The analysis of domino effect impact probability triggered by fragments. Saf Sci 47:1026–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhao J, Chen XW, Jin FN, Xu Y (2010) Depth of penetration of high-speed penetrator with including the effect of mass abrasion. Int J Impact Eng 37:971–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sinopec Zhongyuan Petroleum Engineering Design Co, Ltd, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China

    Xiaoxiao Li

  2. State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation, Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu, 610500, Sichuan, China

    Kexi Liao, Guoxi He & Jianhua Zhao

Authors
  1. Xiaoxiao Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kexi Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guoxi He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianhua Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoxiao Li.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, X., Liao, K., He, G. et al. Study on Domino Probability of Spherical Tank Based on New Failure Model. Fire Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-024-01543-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-024-01543-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation