ENGI 9121 Assignment 1 solution- W 2023

Q1:
Review of Williams Olefins Plant Explosion and Fire Accident

The Imperial Sugar refinery explosion and fire that occurred on February 7, 2008, at about 7:15
pm can be summarized using the Kletz accident model. This refinery converts raw cane sugar
into granulated sugar. The initiating event of the accident was the accumulation of combustible
sugar dust throughout the packaging building.
The lack of proper maintenance and cleaning of the packaging building causing the accident to
occur. A explosion initiated in a system of screw and belt conveyor. The final consequences of
the accident were disastrous, with 14 deaths and 38 injuries, including 14 with serious and life-
threatening burns. The Kletz accident model is a widely used method to represent industrial
accidents and is based on the concept that accidents result from a chain of events. The model
consists of the following four stages:
The initiating event: This is the initial event that initiates the chain of events leading to the
accident. In the case of the Imperial Sugar refinery explosion and fire, the initiating event was the
enclosed malfunctioning of steel belt conveyor located below the sugar silos.
The unsafe act or condition: This is an action or condition that allows the initiating event to
proceed. In this case, the unsafe act or condition was the lack of proper maintenance and cleaning
of the building.
The accident sequence: This is the chain of events that leads to the accident. In the case of the
Imperial Sugar refinery, a spark from a piece of equipment ignited the sugar dust, causing an
violent explosion The final consequences: This is the result of the accident, which in this case
was 14 deaths and 38 injuries.

The accident is represented using Kletz model in following Figure:

 Event Recommendation for prevention/ mitigation
1st layer: Immediate technical recommendation
2nd layer: Avoiding the hazard
3rd layer: Improving management system

14 people were killed 1. Early detection needed, may be sugar dust sensor (1st
and one 38 people got layer)
injured 2. Risk based design should be taken into consideration to
avoid hazards (2nd layer)
3. Personnel training for emergency situations (3rd layer)

4.

Fire and explosion caused by
violent explosion of sugar
dust
1. Inadequate housekeeping practices should be avoided (1st
layer)
2. Proactive maintenance could provide information (2nd
layer)
3. Operators and co-owners should be trained in hazards
study (3rd layer)

Accumulation of combustible
sugar dust to the explosible
1. Inherent safe design should be incorporated in designing and
concentration
scaleup of the conveyor belt (1st layer)
2. Use of high-quality bearing in belt to avoid heating (1st
layer)
3. hazards must be check prior to operation (2nd layer)
4. Lack of personnel training and effective operating
procedures (3rd layer)
5. Emergency shutdown system should be in place (2nd layer)
6. Co-owners should develop a safe evacuation plan (3rd layer)
 Q2:

Advantage Disadvantage
Sequential accident 1) It is very simple to use, 1) Presumption that
models 2) It can work on linear accidents are a result of a
and nonlinear cases. combination of unsafe
acts,
2) Assuming that accidents
could be prevented by
focusing on strengthening
barriers and defenses.
Epidemiological accident 1) Investigating the 1) Cannot be used for
models incident of disease Industrial accidents
2) Provide basis for 2) Need to identify the agent
preventing disease categories.
3) Depend on time,
location, environment
Systemic accident models 1) It includes systems 1) It is hard to understand
theoretic approaches 2) Did not give adequate
and cognitive systems result for disease spread
engineering 3) Doesn't always provide
approaches.
clear recommendations
2) It is recent model for preventing accidents.
(2007)
3) Can consider complex
interactions between
different factors.
 Q3:
a) Zabetakis-Burgess Method
𝐾𝑔
The burning rate, 𝑚′ (𝑚2 𝑠), is calculated from

𝑚′ = 𝑚∞
′
(1 − 𝑒 −𝑘𝛽𝐷 ) … … … … (𝑖)

′
𝐾𝑔 1
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝐻𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑚∞ = 0.074 , 𝑘𝛽 = 1.9 , 𝐷 = 12 𝑚
𝑚2 𝑠 𝑚
Substitute these values in equation (i)
𝐾𝑔 1∗12𝑚 𝑲𝒈
′ −1.9
𝑚 = 0.074 (1 − 𝑒 𝑚 ) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟒
𝑚2 𝑠 𝒎𝟐 𝒔
b) Burgess-Strasser-Grumer Method
𝐾𝑔
The burning rate, 𝑚′ (𝑚2 𝑠), is calculated from
∆𝐻𝑐
𝑚′ = 𝜌𝐿 𝑐1
∆𝐻𝑣 + 𝑐𝑝 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 )

𝐾𝐽
𝐾𝑔 44700 𝐾𝑔 𝑲𝒈
𝑚′ = 616 3 ∗ 1.27 ∗ 10−6 ∗ = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟔𝟎𝟖 𝟑
𝑚 𝐾𝐽 𝑘𝐽 𝒎
450 𝐾𝑔 + 2.31 (341.9 𝑘 − 288𝑘)
𝐾𝑔. 𝑘

c) Mudan Method

𝑐1 ∆𝐻𝑐
𝑚′ =
∆𝐻𝑣 + 𝑐𝑝 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 )

𝐾𝐽
0.001 ∗ 44700 𝐾𝑔 𝑲𝒈
𝑚′ = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟕𝟖 𝟑
𝐾𝐽 𝑘𝐽 𝒎
450 𝐾𝑔 + 2.31 (341.9 𝑘 − 288𝑘)
𝐾𝑔. 𝑘

𝐾𝑔
The experimental value for the burning rate of n-hexane is 0.076 𝑚3 . In this case, Mudan and
Zabetakis-Burgess performed better than Burgess-Strasser-Grumer method.
 Q4:
Mach number, 𝑀𝑗 can be calculated by
(𝛾 + 1)(𝑃0 /𝑃𝑎 )(𝛾−1)⁄𝛾 − 2
𝑀𝑗 = √
(𝛾 − 1)

Where.

𝛾 = 𝐶𝑝 /(𝐶𝑝 − 𝑅/𝑤𝑔 )
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
= 1.52 𝐾𝑔.𝑘 /(1.52 𝐾𝑔.𝑘 − 8.314 /18.6 𝐾𝑔/𝐾𝑚𝑜𝑙) = 1.416
𝐾𝑚𝑜𝑙.𝑘

𝛾
2 𝛾−1
𝑃0 = 𝑃𝑠 ( )
𝛾+1
1.416
2 1.416−1
= 10 (1.416+1) = 5.25 𝑀𝑃𝑎

Therefore;
(𝛾 + 1)(𝑃0 /𝑃𝑎 )(𝛾−1)⁄𝛾 − 2
𝑀𝑗 = √
(𝛾 − 1)

(1.416+1)(5.25/0.1)(1.416−1)⁄1.416 −2
𝑀𝑗 = √ = 3.72
(1.416−1)

Temperature; 𝑇𝑗

𝛾−1
𝑇𝑗 = 𝑇𝑠 (𝑃𝑎 /𝑃𝑠 ) 𝛾

0.10 (1.416−1⁄1.416)
= 288 ( 10 )
= 74.44 𝐾

Velocity, 𝑢𝑗 ;

𝛾𝑅𝑇𝑗
𝑢𝑗 = 𝑀𝑗 √
𝑊𝑔
1.416×8.314×74.44
= 3.72√ 0.0186
𝒖𝒋 = 𝟖𝟎𝟕. 𝟒𝟔 𝑚/𝑠
Source equivalent diameter, 𝐷𝑠 ;

4𝑚
𝐷𝑠 = √
𝜋𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑢𝑗
4×30
= √𝜋×1.225×807.46
𝑫𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟓 𝒎

Step 3: Length of flame, 𝐿𝐵 ;

𝐿𝐵 = 𝐿𝐵0 (0.51𝑒 −0.4𝑢𝑤 + 0.49)[1 − 0.00607(𝜃𝑗𝑣 − 90)]

Where;

𝐿𝐵0 = 𝑌 ∙ 𝐷𝑠

And;

1⁄
𝑔𝐷𝑠 3 2.85 2⁄
5⁄ 2⁄
𝑌 = [0.024 ( 2 ) ]𝑌 3 + 0.2𝑌 3 − [( ) 3] = 0
𝑢𝑗 𝑊

Where;

𝑊𝑔
𝑊=
15.816𝑊𝑔 + 0.0395
0.0186
= 15.816(0.0186)+0.0395
= 0.056

Therefore;
1⁄
9.814 × 0.196 3 5⁄ 2⁄ 2.85 2⁄
𝑌 = [0.024 ( ) ]𝑌 3 + 0.2𝑌 3 − [( ) 3] = 0
807.42 0.056

5⁄ 2⁄
3.44 × 10−4 𝑌 3 + 0.2𝑌 3 − 13.73 = 0

𝑌 = 303.11

Hence;
𝐿𝐵0 = 𝑌 ∙ 𝐷𝑠
𝐿𝐵0 = 303.11 × 0.196
𝑳𝑩𝟎 = 𝟓𝟗. 𝟒
Therefore;
Angle between axis of hole and axis of flame, 𝛼

𝑢𝑤 5
𝑅= = = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟔𝟐
𝑢𝑗 807.4

For 𝑅 ≤ 0.05

𝛼𝑅𝑖 (𝐿𝐵0 ) = 8000𝑅 + 𝑅𝑖 (𝐿𝐵0 )(𝜃𝑗𝑣 − 90)(1 − 𝑒 −25.6𝑅 )

1⁄
𝑔 3
𝑅𝑖 (𝐿𝐵0 ) = 𝐿𝐵0 ( 2 2 )
𝐷𝑠 𝑢𝑗
1⁄
9.814 3
= 59.4 (0.1962×807.462)
𝑹𝒊 (𝑳𝑩𝟎 ) = 𝟒. 𝟑𝟒

𝛼 × 4.34 = 8000 × 0.0062 + 4.34(85 − 90)(1 − 𝑒 −25.6×0.0062 )

𝛼 × 4.34 = 49.6 − 3.18
𝜶 = 𝟏𝟎. 𝟔𝟗°

𝐿𝐵 = 𝐿𝐵0 (0.51𝑒 −0.4𝑢𝑤 + 0.49)[1 − 0.00607(𝜃𝑗𝑣 − 90)]

𝐿𝐵 = 59.4(0.51𝑒 −0.4×5 + 0.49)[1 − 0.00607(85 − 90)]

𝑳𝑩 = 𝟑𝟒. 𝟐𝟏
Lift-off, 𝑏(𝑚);

𝐾 = 0.187𝑒 −20𝑅 + 0.015

𝑲 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟖

sin (𝐾𝛼)
𝑏 = 𝐿𝐵
sin𝛼
sin (0.18×10.69) 0.0335
= 34.21 sin10.69 = 34.21 0.185
b= 𝟔. 𝟏𝟗

Length of frustrum, 𝑅𝐿 (𝑚);

𝑅𝐿 = √𝐿2𝐵 − 𝑏 2 sin2 𝛼 − 𝑏cos𝛼

= √34.212 − 6.192 sin2 (10.69) − 6.19 cos(10.69)
 𝑹𝑳 = 𝟐𝟖. 𝟐 𝒎

Frustrum base width 𝑊1 (𝑚);

1 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝑊1 = 𝐷𝑠 (13.5𝑒 −6𝑅 + 1.5)[1 − 𝑒 −70𝑅𝑖 (𝐷𝑆 )𝐶𝑅 (1 − 15 √ )]
𝜌𝑗

Where;

𝐶 = 1000𝑒 −100𝑅 + 0.8

And;

𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑇𝑗 𝑊𝑎𝑖𝑟
=
𝜌𝑗 𝑇𝑎 𝑊𝑔
74.44×0.029
= 288×0.0186
𝝆𝒂𝒊𝒓
= 𝟎. 𝟒
𝝆𝒋

𝐶 = 1000𝑒 −100𝑅 + 0.8

= 1000𝑒 −100×0.0062 + 0.8 = 𝟓𝟑𝟖. 𝟕
1/3
𝑔
𝑅𝑖 (𝐷𝑆 ) = 𝐷𝑆 ( )
𝑢𝑗2 𝐷𝑆2
1/3
9.814
𝑅𝑖 (𝐷𝑆 ) = 0.196 ( )
807.462 ∗ 0.1962
𝑹𝒊 (𝑫𝑺 ) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟒𝟑
Therefore;
1 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝑊1 = 𝐷𝑠 (13.5𝑒 −6𝑅 + 1.5)[1 − 𝑒 −70𝑅𝑖 (𝐷𝑆 )𝐶𝑅 (1 − √ )
15 𝜌𝑗
1
𝑊1 = 0.196(13.5𝑒 −6×0.0062 + 1.5)[1 − 𝑒 −70∗0.0143×538.7×0.0062 (1 − √0.4)]
15
𝑾𝟏 = 𝟐. 𝟔𝟐 𝒎

Frustrum tip width 𝑊2 (𝑚);

𝑊2 = 𝐿𝐵 (0.18𝑒 −1.5𝑅 + 0.31)(1 − 0.47𝑒 −25𝑅 )

= 34.21(0.18𝑒 −1.5×0.0062 + 0.31)(1 − 0.47𝑒 −25×0.0062 )
𝑾𝟐 = 𝟗. 𝟗𝟕

The surface area of frustrum including end disks, 𝐴;

𝜋 𝜋 𝑊1 − W2 2
𝐴= (𝑊12 + 𝑊22 ) + (𝑊1 + W2 )√𝑅2𝐿 + ( )
4 2 2
 𝜋 2 2 𝜋 2.62−9.97 2
= (2.62 + 9.97 ) + (2.62 + 9.97)√28.22 + ( )
4 2 2
𝑨 = 𝟔𝟒𝟓. 𝟖𝟔 𝒎𝟐

The maximum surface emitting power, 𝑆𝐸𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 ;

𝑚′
𝑆𝐸𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐹𝑠 ∆𝐻𝑐
𝐴

Where;

𝐹𝑠 = 0.21𝑒 −0.00323𝑢𝑗 + 0.11

𝐹𝑠 = 0.21𝑒 −0.00323∗807.46 + 0.11

𝑭𝒔 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟐𝟓

Therefore;

𝑚′
𝑆𝐸𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐹𝑠 ∆𝐻𝑐
𝐴
30
𝑆𝐸𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.125 ∗ ∗ 38 ∗ 106
645.86
= 220 𝑘𝑊/𝑚2

𝑺𝑬𝑷𝒂𝒄𝒕 = 𝑺𝑬𝑷𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟐𝟐𝟎 𝒌𝑾/𝒎𝟐

View factor, 𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 ;

𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 = √𝐹𝑣2 + 𝐹ℎ2

But;

𝛼 2 + (𝛽 + 1)2 − 2𝛽(1 + 𝛼sin𝜃)

−1
𝐴𝐷
𝜋𝐹𝑣 = −𝐸tan 𝐷 + 𝐸 [ ] tan−1 ( )
𝐴𝐵 𝐵
2
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 𝛼𝛽 − 𝐹 sin𝜃 𝐹sin𝜃
+ [tan−1 ( ) + tan−1 ( )]
𝐶 𝐹𝐶 𝐶

−1
1 sin𝜃 −1
𝛼𝛽 − 𝐹 2 sin𝜃 𝐹sin𝜃
𝜋𝐹ℎ = tan ( )+ [tan ( ) + tan−1 ( )]
𝐷 𝐶 𝐹𝐶 𝐶
𝛼 2 + (𝛽 + 1)2 − 2(𝛽 + 1 + 𝛼𝛽sin𝜃) 𝐴𝐷
−[ ] tan−1 ( )
𝐴𝐵 𝐵
Where;

𝛼 = 𝐿⁄𝑅 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝛽 = 𝑋⁄𝑅

𝐴 = √𝛼 2 + (𝛽 + 1)2 − 2𝛼(𝛽 + 1)sin𝜃)

𝐵 = √𝛼 2 + (𝛽 − 1)2 − 2𝛼(𝛽 − 1)sin𝜃
𝐶 = √1 + (𝛽 2 − 1)cos 2 𝜃
𝐷 = √(𝛽 − 1)/(𝛽 + 1)
𝐸 = 𝛼cos𝜃/(𝛽 − 𝛼sin𝜃)
𝐹 = √(𝛽 2 − 1)

tan𝜃/cos𝜃 = 0.666𝐹𝑟 0.333 𝑅𝑒 0.117

𝑋 ′ = √(𝑏sin𝜃𝑗𝑣 )2 + (𝑋 − 𝑏cos𝜃𝑗𝑣 )2
= √(6.19sin85)2 + (40 − 6.19cos85)2
𝑿′ = 𝟑𝟗. 𝟗𝟑

𝑏sin𝜃𝑗𝑣
𝜃 ′ = 90 − 𝜃𝑗𝑣 + 𝛼 − arctan ( )
𝑋 − 𝑏cos𝜃𝑗𝑣
6.19𝑠𝑖𝑛85
= 90 − 85 + 10.69 − arctan (39.93−6.19𝑐𝑜𝑠85)
𝜽′ = 𝟔. 𝟕𝟗
In case of jet fire, the diameter of flame is considered as average of the diameters of the two end discs of
the frustum. Therefore, R can be calculated as follows,

𝑊1 + 𝑊2 2.62 + 9.97
𝑅= =
4 4

𝑹 = 𝟑. 𝟏𝟓
𝑅𝐿 28.2
𝛼 = 𝐿⁄𝑅 = = = 3.71
𝑅 3.15
𝜶 = 𝟖. 𝟗𝟓
39.93
𝛽 = 𝑋⁄𝑅 = = 33.02
3.15
𝜷 = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟔𝟕

Using above equations we get;

𝐴 = √8.952 + (12.67 + 1)2 − 2 ∗ 8.95(12.67 + 1)sin6.79)=15.42
𝐵 = √8.952 + (12.67 − 1)2 − 2 ∗ 8.95(12.67 − 1)sin6.79=13.84
𝐶 = √1 + (12.672 − 1)cos 2 6.79=12.58
𝐷 = √(12.67 − 1)/(12.67 + 1)=0.923
𝐸 = 8.95cos6.79/(12.67 − 8.95sin6.79)=0.765
𝐹 = √(12.672 − 1)=12.63
𝑨 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟒𝟐
𝑩 = 𝟏𝟑. 𝟖𝟒
𝑪 =12.58
𝑫 =0.923
𝑬 =0.765
𝑭 =12.63

−1
𝛼 2 + (𝛽 + 1)2 − 2𝛽(1 + 𝛼sin𝜃) 𝐴𝐷
𝜋𝐹𝑣 = −𝐸tan 𝐷 + 𝐸 [ ] tan−1 ( )
𝐴𝐵 𝐵
2
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 𝛼𝛽 − 𝐹 sin𝜃 𝐹sin𝜃
+ [tan−1 ( ) + tan−1 ( )]
𝐶 𝐹𝐶 𝐶

𝜋𝐹𝑣
= −0.765tan−1 0.923
8.952 + (12.67 + 1)2 − 2 ∗ 12.67 ∗ (1 + 8.95sin6.79) 15.42 ∗ 0.923
+ 0.765 [ ] tan−1 ( )
15.42 ∗ 13.84 13.84
𝑐𝑜𝑠6.79 8.95 ∗ 12.67 − 12.632 sin6.79 12.63sin6.79
+ [tan−1 ( ) + tan−1 ( )]
12.58 12.63 ∗ 12.58 12.58

𝑭𝒗 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟐𝟏
1 sin𝜃 𝛼𝛽 − 𝐹 2 sin𝜃 𝐹sin𝜃
𝜋𝐹ℎ = tan−1 ( ) + [tan−1 ( ) + tan−1 ( )]
𝐷 𝐶 𝐹𝐶 𝐶
𝛼 2 + (𝛽 + 1)2 − 2(𝛽 + 1 + 𝛼𝛽sin𝜃) 𝐴𝐷
−[ ] tan−1 ( )
𝐴𝐵 𝐵

𝜋𝐹ℎ
1 sin6.79 8.95 ∗ 12.67 − 12.632 sin6.79 12.63sin6.79
= tan−1 ( )+ [tan−1 ( ) + tan−1 ( )]
0.923 12.58 12.63 ∗ 12.58 12.58
8.952 + (12.67 + 1)2 − 2 ∗ 12.67 ∗ (1 + 8.95sin6.79) 15.42 ∗ 0.923
−[ ] tan−1 ( )
15.42 ∗ 13.84 13.84
𝑭𝒉 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟔

𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 = √𝐹𝑣2 + 𝐹ℎ2

𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 = √0.0212 + 0.0062 =0.0218

𝑭𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘 =0.0218

The view factor can be read from tables but only for specific cases.
Heat flux, 𝑞 ′ ;

𝑞 ′ = 𝑆𝐸𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑡 ∙ 𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 ∙ 𝜏𝑎
Where;
𝑝𝑤 = 𝑅𝐻 ∗ 𝑃𝑤0 = 0.7 ∗ 2320
𝒑𝒘 = 𝟏𝟔𝟐𝟒
𝜏𝑎 = 𝑐7 [𝑝𝑤 (𝑋 − 𝑅)]−0.09
= 2.02[1624(40 − 3.15)]−0.09
𝝉𝒂 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟓

Therefore;
𝑞 ′ = 𝑆𝐸𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑡 ∙ 𝐹𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤 ∙ 𝜏𝑎
′
𝑞 = 220 × 0.0218 × 0.75
The heat flux, 𝒒′ = 𝟑. 𝟓𝟗𝟕 𝒌𝑾/𝒎𝟐
 Q5:
TNT method, equivalent mass of TNT is calculated as
𝜂 𝑚 ∆𝐻𝑐
𝑀𝑇𝑁𝑇 =
𝐸𝑇𝑁𝑇
𝑘𝐽
0.02 ∗ 2000 𝑘𝑔 ∗ 47,500
𝑘𝑔
𝑀𝑇𝑁𝑇 = = 405.46 𝐾𝑔
𝑘𝐽
4686
𝑘𝑔
Hence, for each distance x, we have scaled distance 𝑍𝑒 as follows,
𝑥
𝑍𝑒 = 1/3
𝑀𝑇𝑁𝑇
50 𝑚
𝑓𝑜𝑟 50 𝑚 𝑍𝑒 = 1/3
(405.46 𝑘𝑔 ) 𝑇𝑁𝑇

𝑍𝑒 = 6.755
Now, overpressure can be estimated using the following equation,

𝑍𝑒 2
80800 (1 + ( ) )
4.5
𝑃𝑠 =
2 2 2
√1 + ( 𝑍𝑒 ) √1 + ( 𝑍𝑒 ) √1 + ( 𝑍𝑒 )
0.048 0.32 1.35

6.755 2
80800 (1 + ( ) )
4.5
𝑃𝑠 = = 17.3𝑘𝑃𝑎
2 2 2
√1 + (6.755) √1 + (6.755) √1 + (6.755)
0.048 0.32 1.35

Similarly, the Ze and Ps can be calculated using MS Excel