Analysis of equipment failures as contributors to chemical process accidents

被引:68
作者
Kidam, Kamarizan [1 ,2 ]
Hurme, Markku [1 ]
机构
[1] Aalto Univ, Dept Biotechnol & Chem Technol, Aalto 00076, Finland
[2] Univ Teknol Malaysia, Dept Chem Engn, Utm Skudai 81310, Malaysia
关键词
Accident database study; Process equipment failures; Accident contributors; Hazard identification; Main risk factors; PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY; STATISTICAL-ANALYSIS; MAJOR ACCIDENTS; INCIDENTS; DATABASE; PLANTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.psep.2012.02.001
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
A database study of chemical process accident cases was carried out. The objective of the study is was to identify the reasons for equipment based accidents. The most frequent accident causing equipment were piping (25%), reactors and storage tanks (both 14%) and process vessels (10% of equipment accidents). The six most accident-prone equipment is process related involve nearly 80% of accidents. 78% of equipment accident contributors are technically oriented including design and human/technical interface faults. Purely human and organizational reasons are the most common accident contributors for storage tanks (33%), piping (18%) and heat transfer equipment (16% of causes). For other equipment the technical accident causes are most common. The accident contributors were divided to main and sub-contributors. On average process equipment failures have 2.2 contributors. The contributors, which frequent and act often as main contributors, should be focused. These risky contributors were identified for several equipment types. Also a deeper analysis of the accident causes and their interconnections was made. Based on the analysis a checklist of main risk factors was created for hazard identification on different types of equipment. (c) 2012 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:61 / 78
页数:18
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1987, 30 YEAR REV 100 LARG
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2010, BLACK SWAN IMPACT HI
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2003, STILL GOING WRONG CA
  • [4] Duguid I, 2001, CHEM ENG-NEW YORK, V108, P80
  • [5] FKD, 2011, FAILURE KNOWLEDGE DA
  • [6] Process industry accidents in Sri Lanka: Analysis and basic lessons learnt
    Gunasekera, M. Y.
    de Alwis, A. A. P.
    [J]. PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 2008, 86 (B6) : 421 - 426
  • [7] Managing major chemical accidents in China: Towards effective risk information
    He, Guizhen
    Zhang, Lei
    Lu, Yonglong
    Mol, Arthur P. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 2011, 187 (1-3) : 171 - 181
  • [8] Preparing for the unexpected - A case for inherently safer design
    Hendershot, Dennis
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL HEALTH & SAFETY, 2011, 18 (05): : 62 - 63
  • [9] Evaluation of major polluting accidents in China-Results and perspectives
    Hou, Yu
    Zhang, Tian-Zhu
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 2009, 168 (2-3) : 670 - 673
  • [10] Instone B., 1989, P 6 INT S LOSS PREV, P118