Investigative consequence analysis: A case study research of beirut explosion accident

Around 15:00 GMT on August 4th, an explosion occurred in the warehouse facility storing Ammonium Nitrate (AN) at Beirut port, Lebanon. The explosion resulted in more than 178 fatalities and injured more than 6500 people, and also left an estimated 300,000 people homeless and registered as an equivalent to a 3.3 magnitude earth quake. The accident was considered to be the largest of its kind and the most severe anthropological disaster of the decade, the financial loss the nation was subjected to post the explosion was estimated to be around $ 15 billion as informed by the governor. The storage conditions of ammonium nitrate at Beirut port is not definitively known to anyone, and there is no documentation provided so far from the authorities regarding the same. This work focuses on the investigation & consequence analysis of the explosion using TNT equivalent approach. The overpressure and the impulse obtained from TNT calculations are used in probit models to assess the damages caused on human beings and structures. The results obtained in this investigative approach are then utilized to provide an analytical inference relative to the damage proxy map reported by the advance rapid imaging analysis team from NASA. Also, this work examines the existing standards, fire safety measures and legal regulations for ammonium nitrate facilities in the region. AN explosion during storage like other fire and explosion accidents are definitely preventable owing to the technological advancements and developments to prevent or extinguish controllable fires. The significance of this work relates to the methods for calculation of consequences of explosion that are happening due to the storage of highly hazardous explosive materials in excessive quantities and insists the necessity of incorporating adequate safety measures while storing such reactive and hazardous materials.     

On the need for system-theoretic hazard analysis in the process industries

Most process hazard analysis (PHA) studies today are conducted using traditional methods such as the hazard and operability study (HAZOP). Traditional methods are based on a chain-of-events model of accident causality. Current models of accident causality are based on systems theory and provide a more complete representation of the causal factors involved in accidents. Consequently, it is logical to expect that PHA methods should reflect these models, that is, system-theoretic hazard analysis (STHA) should be used. Indeed, system-theoretic process analysis (STPA) has been developed as such a method. STPA has been used in a variety of industries but, at this time, it has not gained acceptance by the process industries. This article explores the reasons for this situation. Expectations for PHA in the process industries are examined and issues for the application of STPA in the process industries are discussed. It is concluded that a variety of matters must be addressed before STPA can be considered as a viable PHA method for the process industries and the case for the use of STHA in the process industries is not yet proven.     

Implementation and evaluation of the Safety Element Method at four mining sites

The Safety Element Method (SEM) is a method for improvements of safety results and safety approaches in the Norwegian mining industry. The method is developed by users and researchers in co-operation. The main approach of the method is that a group of organisational members assesses the current and desired situation for their own organisation within defined areas. Based on this assessment they work out a strategy and action plan to reach the internal goals for desired achievement, i.e. the desired situation defined. This article presents the implementation of the method in four mining companies and evaluates the method for its construct validity, criterion validity, face validity, how the method functions and is accepted among the users. The results show that the opinions regarding the experiences with the method are, on the whole, positive. The method is regarded as a valuable approach towards safety improvements. Subjective assessments play a prominent role in SEM, but these assessments are supported by an extensive review of empirical data such as accident reports, interview results and a questionnaire. This means that the internal assessments correspond well to the safety results of the companies and also to the independent external reviews carried out by the researcher.     

永安火电厂人为继电保护不正确动作事故分析及预防对策

通过历年来永安火电厂继电保护人为不正确动作事故情况,进行原因分析,并采取一系列措施,取得了较好效果。     

浅谈建设监理中的安全控制

目前我国大中型建设项目和国家重点工程都实行了建设监理制,在控制工程质量、安全、造价和工期等方面均取得了很大成效。本文阐述了建设监理中安全控制的内容,并针对施工中的不安全因素提出了预防对策。     

石油化工项目环境风险评价实例分析

环境风险评价是石油化工项目环境影响评价的一项重要内容。笔者以某拟建沥青厂为例,利用有关事故统计资料类比分析和世界银行推荐的爆炸危害关系式,对石油化工项目环境风险半定量评价进行了初步探讨。结果表明,该厂发生泄漏事故不会波及外环境,爆炸事故将造成厂区严重破坏并对局地大气环境产生一定影响。      

北京市道路交通安全现状分析及控制策略研究

在分析北京市道路交通安全形势以及事故特点的基础上,运用交通冲突理论分析道路交通事故发生的机理,论述道路交通事故发生的过程。并从安全系统工程学角度,使用交通事故显性/隐性致因模型对道路交通事故的致因因素进行分析,强调管理因素的重要性。最后,结合北京市道路交通现状,综合运用3E对策,讨论了改善道路交通安全的控制策略。通过加大违章行为惩罚力度、培养安全文化、建立道路交通事故应急救援体系以及应用智能交通技术等措施,消除道路交通系统中人的不安全行为和物的不安全状态,提高北京市道路交通安全水平。     

基于心态指标的煤矿瓦斯爆炸区间数模糊评价

为了评估煤矿瓦斯爆炸的安全性,根据瓦斯爆炸的形成条件和事故致因理论,建立了评价体系。然后采用一种新的区间数模糊评价方法,建立数学模型。传统的区间数模糊评价方法是根据最大隶属度原则判断该对象的优劣,不能进行多个对象之间的评价。该方法综合考虑了最大隶属度和评语集,提出区间数的内积公式,进而得到每个对象的综合分数,通过比较其大小进行多个对象之间的评价。考虑到决策者不同心态时对决策方案的影响,引入心态指标,通过调节心态指标来比较综合分数,从而得出煤矿之间的安全性大小。最后,将该方法应用到3所煤矿,运用基于中点值的区间数排序方法对综合评判向量进行分析,所得结果与该方法的结果基本一致,从而验证该方法的正确性。     

城域突发事故灾害发生机理探索

城域突发事故灾害发生机理涉及事故灾害致因、演化过程、发展规律3个主要方面;从典型事故致因理论入手,探索城域突发事故灾害致因有本质原因、基础原因和直接原因;事故致因要素之间的综合作用是城域突发事故灾害发生机理研究的关键,可考虑建立与之对应的数学模型,运用突变理论,对演化过程进行分析,指出城域突发事故灾害演化是一个流变-突变过程,并满足尖点突变模型,引发因素和控制因素两个参数决定事故状态的变化;总结城域突发事故灾害的发展规律,指出城域突发事故灾害沿链条传递,并呈现一定周期性,研究成果可为事故灾害的预防与控制提供借鉴。     

基于行为安全理论的化工事故统计及分析

行为安全理论是事故分析和预防的理论和方法,应用基于行为安全理论的事故致因“2-4”模型对10起化工事故的直接、间接、根本、根源原因进行分析。结果表明:该模型是化工事故分析的有效方法。10起事故的直接原因主要为一线员工在涉及高温加热工艺、带压设备、有毒有害环境和动火作业中的违规违章操作,管理人员未建立或运行安全管理体系等不安全动作及不安全物态,且不安全物态与管理人员不安全行为有关;间接原因是一线员工缺乏岗位安全操作等知识,管理人员缺乏安全管理、技术等知识,导致其安全意识薄弱,养成不良的安全习惯;根本原因是组织安全教育等管理程序缺失和执行不力;根源原因是组织成员对安全的重要度等安全文化元素缺乏理解。