Consequence analysis in industrial organizations containing H 2 S gas through accident scenarios based on chemical source selection

Saliha Çetinyokuş

5 citations0/0 files storedProcess Safety Progress

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Risk and Safety Analysis Chemical Safety and Risk Management Industrial and Mining Safety

Abstract

Abstract H 2 S gas emissions occur in various processes, especially in the purification of polluted waters, mining, and petroleum refining processes and this extremely dangerous chemical has serious toxic emission, explosion, and fire effects. These physical effects vary considerably depending on the source strength. Therefore, consequence analyzes based on source strength models are critical components in the process of assessing hazards. In this study, a consequence analysis was performed with accident scenarios related to different sources of H 2 S gas. ALOHA 5.4.7 and EFFECTS 8.0.1 Software were used for physical effects modeling. Modeling studies were conducted on direct source (continuous release:100 m 3 /s, 5 m 3 /s), puddle source (100 m 3 , 5 m 3 ), tank source (vertical‐horizontal cylindrical, spherical, 1.57 m 3 ), and gas pipeline source with ALOHA Software. Possible Gas LOC (Levels of Concern) scenario Leak (G3) and Gas LOC scenario release in 10 min (G2) scenarios were studied with EFFECTS Software. When the results of both software were compared with each other, it was seen that the effects of thermal radiation and explosion were of similar order and value, and the toxic effect values were very different from each other. Both software allow for a release above ground level for gases that behave as neutrally buoyant. The main difference between the dispersion models used in the software is that the gas is assumed to behave as non‐interacting ideal gas in ALOHA, but in EFFECTS deviations from ideal gas are considered. And, ALOHA dispersion models use surface roughness lengths in a limited fashion and only include 60‐min AEGLs. ALOHA does not account for topographic steering or winds that vary with time in EFFECTS. It can be said that the results of the ALOHA Software are more conservative than the EFFECTS Software.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Quantitative risk analysis of toxic gas release caused poisoning—A CFD and dose–response model combined approach 2013An approach for estimating toxic releases of H2S-containing natural gas 2019RETRACTED: Assessment of failure and consequences analysis of an accident: A case study 2020Safety distances for the sour biogas in digestion plants 2000Cushioning the impact of toxic release from runaway industrial accidents with greenbelts 2019Evaluation of hazard distances related to toxic releases in a gas refinery: comparison of chemical exposure index and consequence modeling approaches

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.