A method for facility layout optimisation including stochastic risk assessment

Abstract Facility siting and layout configuration are essential factors during design and expansion of any industrial installation. In the recent past, cost-driven layout arrangements and the proximity of chemical facilities to densely populated areas, among other factors, have also contributed to the severity and propagation of various chemical incidents. Although several studies have been reported to address such problems, there is still a need for incorporating safety into the facility layout problem (FLP); especially for a method combining quantitative risk assessment (QRA) and layout reformulation. Based on that, the objective of this study is to develop a framework integrating layout formulation with a quantitative risk assessment method to support risk-based decisions throughout the lifecycle of process facilities. The proposed methodology is divided into three steps: risk calculation, determination of safety distances, and layout optimisation. In the first stage, an in-house code has been developed to quantify risks associated with loss of human life and structural damage stochastically. Subsequently, minimum separation distances between process units are obtained to prevent escalation events. In the last stage, risk maps and safety distances are accounted in a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) for layout optimisation. The application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated through a case study. Sensitivity analysis is performed by varying risk values, safe distances, and risk acceptance criteria. Even though different layout options are generated, a trend is observed towards placing the equipment by its type.

[1]  A. R. Ciric,et al.  An MINLP Approach for Safe Process Plant Layout , 1996 .

[2]  Mike Moosemiller Development of algorithms for predicting ignition probabilities and explosion frequencies , 2011 .

[3]  Sandia Report,et al.  Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water. , 2004 .

[4]  A. Lannoy,et al.  Methods for vapour cloud explosion blast modelling , 1993 .

[5]  Cassio Brunoro Ahumada Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool Applied in Facility Layout Optimization , 2016 .

[6]  Joaquim Casal,et al.  Calculating overpressure from BLEVE explosions , 2004 .

[7]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  The legacy of Bhopal: The impact over the last 20 years and future direction , 2005 .

[8]  Josep Arnaldos,et al.  Optimizing the design of storage facilities through the application of ISD and QRA , 2014 .

[9]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[10]  Ignacio E. Grossmann,et al.  A mathematical programming model for optimal layout considering quantitative risk analysis , 2014, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[11]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  An approach for domino effect reduction based on optimal layouts , 2013 .

[12]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  The development of an inherent safety approach to the prevention of domino accidents. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  M Sam Mannan,et al.  Sensor fault diagnosis for nonlinear processes with parametric uncertainties. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[14]  Rex Britter,et al.  Workbook on the dispersion of dense gases , 1988 .

[15]  M Sam Mannan,et al.  Aspect ratio and polydispersity dependence of isotropic-nematic transition in discotic suspensions. , 2012, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[16]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  An approach to solve the facility layout problem based on the worst-case scenario , 2010, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries.

[17]  Ccps Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis , 1999 .

[18]  A. D. Johnson,et al.  A model for predicting the thermal radiation hazards from large-scale horizontally released natural gas jet fires , 1994 .

[19]  Juan Francisco Sánchez Pérez,et al.  Characteristic overpressure-impulse-distance curves for vapour cloud explosions using the TNO Multi-Energy model. , 2006 .

[20]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Assessment of domino effect: State of the art and research Needs , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[21]  Valerio Cozzani,et al.  Thresholds for domino effects and safety distances in the process industry: A review of approaches and regulations , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[22]  Carl D. Laird,et al.  A new approach for facility siting using mapping risks on a plant grid area and optimization , 2010 .

[23]  Norman A. Eisenberg,et al.  Vulnerability model. A simulation system for assessing damage resulting from marine spills. Final report , 1975 .

[24]  Michael C. Georgiadis,et al.  A general mathematical programming approach for process plant layout , 1999 .

[25]  Lazaros G. Papageorgiou,et al.  An MILP Approach to Safe Process Plant Layout , 2004 .

[26]  C. J. H. Bosch,et al.  Methods for the calculation of physical effects , 1997 .

[27]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  A stochastic approach for risk analysis in vapor cloud explosion , 2015 .

[28]  Jacob Dweck,et al.  Deadly LNG incident holds key lessons for developers, regulators , 2004 .

[29]  M. G. Zabetakis,et al.  Fire and explosion hazards associated with liquefied natural gas , 1962 .

[30]  En Sup Yoon,et al.  Optimal Layout of a Chemical Process Plant to Minimize the Risk to Humans , 2013, KES.

[31]  Ethan S. Hecht,et al.  HyRAM: A methodology and toolkit for quantitative risk assessment of hydrogen systems , 2017 .

[32]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  A MINLP approach for layout designs based on the domino hazard index , 2014 .