DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

LNG 추진선의 천연가스 배관에서 누출 시나리오에 따른 피해범위에 관한 연구

A Study on the Damage Range According to Leakage Scenarios in Natural Gas Pipeline of LNG Fueled Ship

  • 이윤호 (목포해양대학교 해양경찰학부)
  • Lee, Yoon-Ho (Division of Coast Guard, Mokpo National Maritime University)
  • 투고 : 2020.04.08
  • 심사 : 2020.06.26
  • 발행 : 2020.06.30

초록

본 연구에서는 LNG 추진선에서 배관의 파손으로 천연가스가 누출되었을 때 누출공의 크기별 플래시 화재, 과압, 복사열에 따른 피해범위를 ALOHA(Areal Location of Hazardous Atmospheres)를 이용하여 산출했다. 그리고 민감도 분석을 위해 환경 변수(풍속, 대기온도, 대기 안정도)와 공정 변수(배관 압력, 배관 길이)로 구분하여 다양한 시나리오별 피해영향범위를 분석했다. 그 결과 환경 변수에 따른 피해범위는 플래시 화재에 의한 피해범위가 가장 컸으며 다음으로 과압, 복사열 순서로 큰 피해범위를 나타냈다. 그리고 공정 변수에 따른 피해범위를 산출한 결과 배관의 압력과 길이, 누출공의 크기와 관계없이 플래시 화재에 의한 피해범위가 가장 컸으며, 환경 변수와 동일하게 과압, 복사열 순서로 높은 피해범위를 보였다. 또한 누출공의 크기가 클수록 환경 변수와 공정 변수가 피해범위에 큰 영향을 주었으며 제트 환재에 의한 피해범위는 환경 변수에 비해 공정 변수에 의한 피해범위가 더 큰 것을 알 수 있었다.

In this study, damages caused by flash fire, overpressure, and thermal radiation based on the sizes of leak holes were evaluated using the areal location of hazardous atmospheres when natural gas leaked owing to the damage of pipeline in a LNG fueled ship. In addition, environmental variables (wind speed, atmospheric temperature, and atmospheric stability) and process variables (pipe pressure and pipe length) were classified to analyze the damage impact ranges caused by various scenarios. From the results, the damage range caused by the environmental variables was the largest, followed by overpressure and thermal radiation. Additionally, for the process variables, regardless of the pressure, length, or size of the leak holes, the damage range attributed to flash fire was the most significant, and the damage range was high in the order of overpressure and thermal radiation, similar to the environmental variables. The larger the size of the leak holes, the higher the values of the environmental and process variables, and the higher the damage range caused by jet fire compared to the environmental variables.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. ALOHA(2013), ALOHA Technical documentation. Nov. 2013.
  2. Anjana, N. S., A. Amarnath, S. V. Chithra, M. V. Harindranathan Nair, and K. J. Subin(2015), Population Vulnerability Assessment around a LPG Storage and Distribution Facility near Cochin using ALOHA And GIS, International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 23-31.
  3. Bernatik, A., P. Senovsky, and M. Pitt(2011), LNG as a potential alternative fuel e Safety and security of storage facilities, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 pp. 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2010.08.003
  4. Bubbico, R. and B. Mazzarotta(2008), Accidental Release of Toxic Chemicals: Influence of the Main Input Parameters on Consequence Calculation, Journal of Hazardous Materials 151, p. 394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.06.002
  5. CCPS(2000), Centre for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2nd Edition.
  6. Comarova, Z. and S. Mangul(2008), Simulation of Emission Dispersion as the Method of Air Quality Management, in Simulation and Assessment of Chemical Processes in a Multiphase Environment, Springer, pp. 403-408.
  7. Dan, S. K., C. J. Lee, J. P. Park, D. G. Shin, and E. S. Yoon(2014), Quantitative risk analysis of fire and explosion on the top-side LNG-liquefaction process of LNG-FPSO, Process Safety and Environmental Protection 92, pp. 430-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.04.011
  8. Davidson, R. A., J. Kendra, S. Li, L. C. Long, D. A. McEntire, C. Scawthorn, and J. Kelly(2012), San Bruno California, Gas Pipeline Explosion and Fire, Disaster Research Center.
  9. Dong, G., L. Xue, Y. Yang, and J. T. Yang(2010), Evaluation of Hazard Range for the Natural Gas Jet Released from a High-pressure Pipeline: A Computational Parametric Study, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23, p. 522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2010.04.007
  10. Ha, D. M.(1998), A Study on the Characteristics of Methane and LNG Explosion, The Korean Society of safety, Proceeding of Autumn Conference.
  11. Hanna, S.(2008), Comparison of Six Widely-Used Dense Gas Dispersion Models for Three Recent Chlorine Railcar Accidents, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 248-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.10257
  12. Kang, S. K., H. J. Bang, and Y. D. Jo(2013), Consequence Analysis of Hydrogen Blended Natural Gas(HCNG) using 3D CFD Simulation, Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 15-21. https://doi.org/10.7842/kigas.2013.17.5.15
  13. Kim, H. C.(2018), Professor Kim Hae-chang's Energy Conversion Story, International newspaper, (Accessed 8 Jan. 2020).
  14. Kim, S. H.(2010), Thermal Diffusion Characteristics of FPSO Topsides under Fire considering Wind Effects, University The National University of Pusan Master Thesis.
  15. Ko, J. S.(2012), Study on Probabilistic Analysis for Fire. Explosion Accidents of LPG Vaporizer with Jet Fire, J. Kor. Inst. Fire Sci. Eng., Vol. 26, No. 4, 2012, pp. 31-41.
  16. KOSHA Code P-14(2000), Technical Guidelines for Leakage Source Modeling, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency.
  17. Lee, S. I.(2015), Estimation of explosion risk potential in fuel gas supply systems for LNG fuelled ships, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Engineering, Vol. 39, No. 9 pp. 918-922. https://doi.org/10.5916/jkosme.2015.39.9.918
  18. Lee, Y. H.(2018), Analysis of the Impact of Fire and Explosion Accidents due to LNG Leaks in the LNG Re-gasification Process, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 825-833. https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2018.24.6.825
  19. Lees, F. P.(1980), Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control, Butterworths.
  20. Park, S. H.(2014), A study on the fire risk assessment of natural gas power plant, The University of Seoul Master Thesis.
  21. Seok, J., S. M. Jeong, J. C. Park, and J. K. Paik(2013), CFD Simulation of Methane Combustion for Estimation of Fire and Explosion in Offshore Plant, Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 59-68. https://doi.org/10.5574/KSOE.2013.27.2.059
  22. Song, I. H.(2018), Analysis of the impact of fire and explosion on petrochemical process using CFD, University The National University of Pusan Master Thesis.
  23. Wang, K., Y. He, Z. Liu, and X. Qian(2019), Experimental study on optimization models for evaluation of fireball characteristics and thermal hazards induced by LNG vapor Cloud explosions based on colorimetric thermometry, Journal of Hazardous Materials 366, pp. 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.10.087
  24. Yoo, J. H., B. S. Kim, H. S., E. S. Ko, and G. B. Lee(2009), A Study on Consequence Analysis of LNG/LPG/Gasoline Station, Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas, Vol. 13, No. 3.
  25. You, J. S. and Y. J. Chang(2015), Study on the Ship Fire Analysis According to Explosion Hazard, Fire Sci. Eng., Vol. 29, No 1, pp. 80-86. https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.2015.29.1.080
  26. Zhu, H., Z. Mao, Q. Wang, and J. Sun(2013a), The influences of key factors on the consequences following the natural gas leakage from pipeline, International Association for Fire Safety Science, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 62, pp. 592-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.08.104