• 한국가스학회지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.46-64
• /
• 2019

폭발위험장소의 선정과 거리계산에 대한 상세기술기준 KGS GC101 2018(가스시설의 폭발위험장소 종류 구분 및 범위 산정에 관한 기준)이 제정되어, 2018년 7월 12일부터 시행되었다. IEC60079-10-1 2015 (Explosive atmospheres Part 10-1: Classification of areas - Explosive gas atmospheres)에 대한 전수 내용을 정리하고, 모호한 기준의 해석이나 기준에 대한 가이드라인을 추가하여 제정하였다. KGS GC101은 폭발위험장소 종류의 구분을 위한 방법으로 (1)누출등급의 결정 (2)누출 홀 크기의 결정 (3)누출유량의 결정 (4)희석등급의 결정 (5)환기유효성의 결정을 통하여 최종적으로 (6)위험장소의 결정 (7) 폭발위험장소 범위의 산정을 할 수 있다. 이 과정을 쉽게 계산하기 위하여 Visual Basic for Application (Excel) 언어로 구성한 프로그램(KGS-HAC, C-2018-020632)을 한국가스안전공사에서 제작하였고, 현재 시범 사용 중(2019년 4월 1일 현재 v1.14)에 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 현장에서 어려워하여, 본 논문을 통하여 코드 및 프로그램의 사용법을 설명하는 것으로 해결코자 한다.

• Korean Chemical Engineering Research
• /
• 제58권3호
• /
• pp.493-497
• /
• 2020

Hazardous area classification is designed to prevent chemical plant explosions in advance. Generally, the duration of the explosive atmosphere is used for zone type classification. Herein, IEC code, a quantitative zone type classification methodology, was used to achieve Zone 2 NE, which indicates a practical non-explosion condition. This study analyzed the operating pressure of a vessel handling propane to achieve Zone 2 NE by applying the IEC code via MATLAB. The resulting zone type and hazardous area grades were compared with the results from other design standards, namely API and EI codes. According to the IEC code, the operating pressure of vessels handling propane should be between 101325-116560.59 Pa. In contrast, the zone type classification criteria used by API and EI codes are abstract. Therefore, since these codes could interpret excessively explosive atmospheres, care is required while using them for hazardous area classification design.

• 한국안전학회지
• /
• 제33권4호
• /
• pp.21-29
• /
• 2018

In many companies handling flammable liquids, explosion-proof electrical equipment have been installed according to the Korean Industrial Standards (KS C IEC 60079-10-1). In these standards, hazardous area for explosive gas atmospheres has to be classified by the evaluation of the evaporation rate of flammable liquid leakage. The evaporation rate is an important factor to determine the zones classification and hazardous area distance. However, there is no systematic method or rule for the estimation of evaporation rate in these standards and the first principle equations of a evaporation rate are very difficult. Thus, it is really hard for industrial workplaces to employ these equations. Thus, this problem can trigger inaccurate results for evaluating evaporation range. In this study, empirical models for estimating an evaporation rate of flammable liquid have been developed to tackle this problem. Throughout the sensitivity analysis of the first principle equations, it can be found that main factors for the evaporation rate are wind speed and temperature and empirical models have to be nonlinear. Polynomial regression is employed to build empirical models. Methanol, benzene, para-xylene and toluene are selected as case studies to verify the accuracy of empirical models.

• 공업화학
• /
• 제32권1호
• /
• pp.102-109
• /
• 2021

Recently, an interest in risk calculation methods has been increasing in Korea due to the establishment of classification code for explosive hazardous area on gas facility (KGS CODE GC101), which is based on the international standard of classification of areas - explosive gas atmospheres (IEC 60079-10-1). However, experiments to check for leaks of combustible or toxic gases are very difficult. These experiments can lead to fire, explosion, and toxic poisoning. Therefore, even if someone tries to provide a laboratory for this experiment, it is difficult to install a gas leakage equipment. In this study we find out differences among actual experiments, CFD by using FLACS and calculation based on classification code for explosive hazardous area on gas facility (KGS CODE GC101) by comparing to each other. We develpoed KGS HAC (hazardous area classification) program which based on KGS GC101 for convenience and popularization. As a result, actual gas leak, CFD and KGS HAC are showing slightly different results. The results of dispersion of 1.8 to 2.7 m were shown in the actual experiment, and the CFD and KGS HAC showed a linear increase of about 0.4 to 1 m depending on the increase in a flow rate. In the actual experiment, the application of 3/8" tubes and orifice to take into account the momentum drop resulted in an increase in the hazardous distance of about 1.95 m. Comparing three methods was able to identify similarities between real and CFD, and also similarities and limitations of CFD and KGS HAC. We hope these results will provide a good basis for future experiments and risk calculations.