In this chapter, the rapid Natech risk analysis and mapping framework RAPID-N introduced in Chapter 8 is used to carry out a simplified Natech risk analysis for an industrial facility in Izmit Bay in Turkey that was subjected to a predicted Istanbul earthquake scenario. The results demonstrate RAPID-N’s capability to assess the earthquake impact on an industrial plant, including the simultaneous analysis of the Natech risk at several plant units.
Table 10.1
Storage Tank Characteristics Determined From Satellite Imagery
Unit ID | Tank Shape | Roof Type | Foundation Type | Storage Condition | Diameter (m) | Dike Area (m × m) |
FR-A | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 42.5 | 50 × 55 |
FR-B | Cylindrical | External floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 42.5 | 50 × 55 |
FR-C | Cylindrical | External floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 42.5 | 50 × 55 |
FR-1 | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 25.0 | 50 × 50 |
FR-2 | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 25.0 | 50 × 50 |
FR-3 | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 25.0 | 50 × 50 |
FR-4 | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 25.0 | 50 × 50 |
FR-5 | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 25.0 | 50 × 50 |
FR-6 | Cylindrical | Internal floating | On-ground | Atmospheric | 25.0 | 50 × 50 |
S-1 | Spherical | — | Elevated | Pressurized | 12.5 | 32 × 30 |
S-2 | Spherical | — | Elevated | Pressurized | 18.0 | 42 × 30 |
T-1 | Cylindrical | Fixed | On-ground | Atmospheric | 12.2 | 24 × 24 |
T-2 | Cylindrical | Fixed | On-ground | Atmospheric | 12.2 | 24 × 24 |
T-3 | Cylindrical | Fixed | On-ground | Atmospheric | 7.6 | 30 × 22 |
T-4 | Cylindrical | Fixed | On-ground | Atmospheric | 12.5 | 25 × 22 |
T-5 | Cylindrical | Fixed | On-ground | Atmospheric | 17.2 | 30 × 30 |
T-6 | Cylindrical | Fixed | On-ground | Atmospheric | 12.5 | 25 × 30 |
Table 10.2
Type and Amount of Substances in the Tanks Considered in the Case Study
Unit ID | Stored Substance | Height (m) | H/D Ratio | Capacity (m3) | Dike Volume (m3) | Fill Level (%) | Stored Quantity (tons) |
FR-A | Acrylonitrile | 10.5 | 0.25 | 16,000 | 16,000 | 50 | 6,366 |
FR-1 | Acrylonitrile | 10.5 | 0.42 | 5,042 | 5,050 | 60 | 2,407 |
FR-2 | Vinyl acetate | 10.5 | 0.42 | 5,044 | 5,050 | 60 | 2,772 |
FR-3 | Vinyl acetate | 10.5 | 0.42 | 5,044 | 5,050 | 40 | 1,848 |
FR-4 | Acrylonitrile | 10.5 | 0.42 | 5,042 | 5,050 | 60 | 2,407 |
FR-5 | Acrylonitrile | 10.5 | 0.42 | 5,042 | 5,050 | 50 | 2,006 |
FR-6 | Acrylonitrile | 10.5 | 0.42 | 5,042 | 5,050 | 40 | 1,605 |
S-1 | Ammonia | 12.5 | 1.00 | 972 | 1,270 | 80 | 532 |
S-2 | Ammonia | 18.0 | 1.00 | 3,002 | 1,800 | 80 | 1,642 |
T-1 | Methanol | 9.0 | 0.74 | 1,059 | 577 | 80 | 671 |
T-2 | Methanol | 9.0 | 0.74 | 1,060 | 577 | 40 | 336 |
T-3 | Acetic acid | 11.0 | 1.45 | 504 | 750 | 80 | 423 |
T-4 | Acetic acid | 9.0 | 0.72 | 1,087 | 1,360 | 40 | 456 |
T-5 | Methanol | 9.5 | 0.55 | 2,186 | 882 | 80 | 1,385 |
T-6 | Acetic acid | 9.0 | 0.72 | 1,080 | 1,360 | 60 | 680 |
Table 10.3
Damage Classifications Utilized for the Case Study
State | O’Rourke and So (2000) | Moschonas et al. (2014) |
DS1 | No damage to tank or I/O pipes. | No damage. |
DS2 | Damage to roof, minor loss of contents, minor damage to piping, but no elephant-foot buckling. | Minor yields that correspond to minor permanent deformations at critical sections of a small percentage of columns and/or braces. |
DS3 | Elephant-foot buckling with minor loss of content. | Moderate yields corresponding to moderate permanent deformations at critical sections of a moderate percentage of columns and/or braces without any global buckling failure of columns. |
DS4 | Elephant-foot buckling with major loss of content, severe damage. | Major yields causing major permanent deformations at critical sections of a large percentage of columns and/or braces with global buckling failure of columns where maximum compression occurs. |
DS5 | Total failure, tank collapse. | Buckling failure with subsequent collapse of the pressure vessel. |
Table 10.4
Summary of Damage Parameters for the Earthquake Damage Analysis
Unit ID | Distancea (km) | PGA (g) | PGV (m/s) | Fragility Curve | Damage Probability (%) | ||||
DS1 | DS2 | DS3 | DS4 | DS5 | |||||
FR-A | 6.24 | 0.78 | 1.67 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 37.7 | 50.9 | 9.0 | 2.2 | 0.2 |
FR-1 | 6.25 | 0.78 | 1.68 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 37.6 | 50.9 | 9.1 | 2.3 | 0.2 |
FR-2 | 6.26 | 0.79 | 1.68 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 37.4 | 50.9 | 9.1 | 2.3 | 0.2 |
FR-3 | 6.26 | 0.79 | 1.68 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 37.3 | 51.0 | 9.2 | 2.3 | 0.2 |
FR-4 | 6.31 | 0.78 | 1.67 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 38.0 | 50.8 | 8.8 | 2.2 | 0.2 |
FR-5 | 6.31 | 0.78 | 1.67 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 37.9 | 50.8 | 8.9 | 2.2 | 0.2 |
FR-6 | 6.32 | 0.78 | 1.67 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 37.7 | 50.9 | 9.0 | 2.2 | 0.2 |
S-1 | 6.22 | 0.78 | 1.67 | Moschonas et al., Braced | 8.7 | 84.0 | 6.9 | 0.3 | 0.01 |
S-2 | 6.22 | 0.78 | 1.67 | Moschonas et al., Braced | 8.7 | 84.0 | 6.9 | 0.3 | 0.01 |
T-1 | 6.18 | 0.78 | 1.68 | O’Rourke and So, H/D ≥ 0.7 | 11.8 | 22.5 | 38.2 | 25.5 | 1.9 |
T-2 | 6.18 | 0.79 | 1.68 | O’Rourke and So, H/D ≥ 0.7 | 11.8 | 22.5 | 38.1 | 25.6 | 2.0 |
T-3 | 6.25 | 0.78 | 1.67 | O’Rourke and So, H/D ≥ 0.7 | 12.1 | 23.1 | 38.5 | 24.6 | 1.7 |
T-4 | 6.25 | 0.78 | 1.67 | O’Rourke and So, H/D ≥ 0.7 | 12.1 | 23.0 | 38.4 | 24.7 | 1.7 |
T-5 | 6.28 | 0.78 | 1.66 | O’Rourke and So, H/D < 0.7 | 38.3 | 50.7 | 8.6 | 2.1 | 0.2 |
T-6 | 6.28 | 0.78 | 1.66 | O’Rourke and So, H/D ≥ 0.7 | 12.2 | 23.2 | 38.5 | 24.4 | 1.7 |
a From the epicenter.
Table 10.5
Summary of Risk States Used for the Case Study
State | O’Rourke and So (2000) | Moschonas et al. (2014) |
DS1 | No release | No release |
DS2 | 2% release, 30% release probability | No release |
DS3 | 5% release, 50% release probability | 2% release, 60 min, 50% release probability |
DS4 | 50% release, 80% release probability | 20% release, 60 min, 80% release probability |
DS5 | 100% release, 100% release probability | 100% release, 10 min, 100% release probability |
Table 10.6
Summary of Chemical Properties of Hazardous Substances Used for the Case Study
Property | Methanol | Vinyl Acetate | Acetic Acid | Ammonia | Acrylonitrile |
CAS No. | 67-56-1 | 108-05-4 | 64-19-7 | 7664-41-7 | 107-13-1 |
EC No. | 200-659-6 | 203-545-4 | 200-580-7 | 231-635-3 | 203-466-5 |
Chemical formula | CH3OH | C4H6O2 | C2H4O2 | NH3 | C3H3N |
Molecular weight (g/mol) | 32.04 | 86.09 | 60.05 | 17.03 | 53.06 |
Density (g/cm3) | 0.792 | 0.934 | 1.049 | 0.682 | 0.806 |
Boiling point (°C) | 64.7 | 72.5 | 118.5 | −33.3 | 77.3 |
Vapor pressure (mmHg) | 126.9 | 115.0 | 15.9 | 7524.0 | 106.3 |
Vapor density | 1.11 | 2.97 | 2.07 | 0.59 | 1.83 |
Flash point (°C) | 11 | −8 | 39 | — | −1 |
Lower explosive limit (%) | 6 | 2.6 | 4 | 15 | 3 |
Upper explosive limit (%) | 36.5 | 13.4 | 16 | 28 | 17 |
Heat capacity (J/mol·K) | 81.1 | 165.0 | 123.1 | 35.1 | 110.9 |
Heat of vaporization (kJ/mol) | 39.2 | 34.4 | 52.3 | 23.3 | 31.8 |
Heat of combustion (kJ/mol) | 723 | 1931 | 873 | 316 | 1718 |
ERPG-2 concentration (ppm) | 1000 | 75 | 35 | 150 | 35 |
Table 10.7
RAPID-N Output for Earthquake Impact on Tank T-1 Containing Methanol
State | Consequence Scenario | End-Point Distance (m) | Natech Probability (%) |
DS1 | No release | — | — |
DS2 | 16.9 m3 release; 459 m2 pool (within dike) | 33.5 | 0.07 |
DS3 | 42.4 m3 release; 459 m2 pool (within dike) | 33.5 | 0.19 |
DS4 | 423.6 m3 release; 459 m2 pool (within dike) | 33.5 | 0.20 |
DS5 | 847.2 m3 release; 3161 m2 pool (dike overflow) | 88.0 | 0.02 |
Table 10.8
RAPID-N Output for Earthquake Impact on Tank FR-1 Containing Acrylonitrile
State | Consequence Scenario | End-Point Distance (km) | Natech Probability (%) |
DS1 | No release | — | — |
DS2 | 60.5 m3 release; 2009 m2 pool (within dike) | 2.4 | 15.3 |
DS3 | 151.3 m3 release; 2009 m2 pool (within dike) | 2.4 | 4.5 |
DS4 | 1512.6 m3 release; 2009 m2 pool (within dike) | 2.4 | 1.8 |
DS5 | 3025.2 m3 release; 2009 m2 pool (within dike) | 2.4 | 0.2 |
Table 10.9
Summary of the Natech Risk Assessment Results for All Tanks
Unit ID | Event | DS2 | DS3 | DS4 | DS5 |
FR-A | Toxic dispersion | 160 m3, 1.6 km, 15.3% | 400 m3, 1.6 km, 4.5% | 4000 m3, 1.6 km, 1.8% | 8000 m3, 1.6 km, 0.2% |
FR-1 | Toxic dispersion | 60.5 m3, 2.4 km, 15.3% | 151.3 m3, 2.4 km, 4.5% | 1512.6 m3, 2.4 km, 1.8% | 3025.2 m3, 2.4 km, 0.2% |
FR-2 | Toxic dispersion | 60.5 m3, 1.6 km, 15.3% | 151.3 m3, 1.6 km, 4.6% | 1512.6 m3, 1.6 km, 1.8% | 3025.2 m3, 1.6 km, 0.2% |
FR-3 | Toxic dispersion | 40.4 m3, 1.6 km, 15.3% | 100.9 m3, 1.6 km, 4.6% | 1008.8 m3, 1.6 km, 1.8% | 2017.6 m3, 1.6 km, 0.2% |
FR-4 | Toxic dispersion | 60.5 m3, 2.4 km, 15.2% | 151.3 m3, 2.4 km, 4.4% | 1512.6 m3, 2.4 km, 1.7% | 3025.2 m3, 2.4 km, 0.2% |
FR-5 | Toxic dispersion | 50.4 m3, 2.4 km, 15.2% | 126 m3, 2.4 km, 4.4% | 1260 m3, 2.4 km, 1.8% | 2521 m3, 2.4 km, 0.2% |
FR-6 | Toxic dispersion | 40.3 m3, 2.4 km, 15.3% | 100.8 m3, 2.4 km, 1.8% | 1008.4 m3, 2.4 km, 1.8% | 2016.8 m3, 2.4 km, 0.2% |
S-1 | Toxic dispersion | No release | 15.6 m3, 0.6 km, 3.4% | 155.5 m3, 1.9 km, 0.3% | 777.6 m3, 8.7 km, 0.01% |
S-2 | Toxic dispersion | No release | 48.0 m3, 1.0 km, 3.5% | 480.3 m3, 2.9 km, 0.3% | 2401.6 m3, 13.5 km, 0.01% |
T-1 | Pool fire | 16.9 m3, 33.5 m, 0.07% | 42.4 m3, 33.5 m, 0.2% | 423.6 m3, 33.5 m, 0.2% | 847.2 m3, 88.0 m, 0.02% |
T-2 | Pool fire | 8.5 m3, 33.5 m, 0.07% | 21.2 m3, 33.5 m, 0.2% | 212.0 m3, 33.5 m, 0.2% | 424.0 m3, 33.5 m, 0.02% |
T-3 | Pool fire | 8.1 m3, 27.9 m, 0.07% | 20.2 m3, 27.9 m, 0.2% | 201.6 m3, 27.9 m, 0.2% | 403.2 m3, 27.9 m, 0.02% |
T-4 | Pool fire | 8.7 m3, 23.1 m, 0.07% | 21.7 m3, 23.1 m, 0.2% | 217.4 m3, 23.1 m, 0.2% | 434.8 m3, 23.1 m, 0.02% |
T-5 | Pool fire | 35.0 m3, 40.4 m, 0.1% | 87.4 m3, 40.4 m, 0.04% | 874.4 m3, 40.4 m, 0.02% | 1748.8 m3, 151.2 m, 0.002% |
T-6 | Pool fire | 13.0 m3, 26.6 m, 0.07% | 32.4 m3, 26.6 m, 0.2% | 324 m3, 26.6 m, 0.2% | 648.0 m3, 26.6 m, 0.02% |
The table shows tank volume involved in the accidents, end-point distance, and event probability.