Assessment of Changes of Safe Distances in Case of Violations of the Gas Pipeline Testing Regulations



Annotation:

Accidents occurring during the process of gas pipelines testing are characterized by the impossibility of the occurrence of thermal radiation of jet flames and fire in the pit-damaging factors dominating the operation stage of the facility. In addition, what is happening cannot be accompanied by the baric effect of chemical explosions. However, taking into account the significant increase in pressure in the gas pipeline during pneumatic tests, such damaging factors of the accident as the scattering of fragments, the pressure effect of a high-speed jet and the baric effect of the primary shock wave are amplified. The issue of ensuring the safety of personnel present near the test site becomes relevant. As a result, the need occurs to determine precisely the safe distances to the gas pipeline. Protective zones for the population are also established based on the identified safe distances.  

Within the framework of the risk-oriented approach, the procedure for determining safe distances is reduced to calculating the distances at which damaging factors lose their damaging properties. When assigning protective zones, it is required to consider the possibility of changing the indicator under consideration, due to probable errors of personnel in the preparation and conduct of tests. Even non-critical miscalculations can significantly affect the determination of a safe distance.

The article presents an assessment of the relative values of safe distances, taking into account possible violations of the regulations regarding backfilling and filling with water or air, during hydraulic or pneumatic tests of gas pipelines. Relative values of safe distances are also established in terms of the scattering of fragments and the impact of an air shock wave of a physical explosion on people and building objects.

References:
1. Gamera Ju.V., Ovcharov S.V., Petrova Ju.Ju. Computational model for determining the areas of exposure from the dynamic effect of a high-speed gas jet. Gazovaja promyshlennost. Spec.vyp. «Promyshlennaja bezopasnost i protivopozharnaja zashhita obektov gazovoj promyshlennosti» = Gas Industry. Special Issue. Industrial Safety and Fire Fighting Protection of Gas Industry Objects. 2014. № S (712). pp. 39–43. (In Russ.).
2. Adibi O., Farhanieh B., Afshin H. Numerical study of heat and mass transfer in underexpanded sonic free jet// International Journal of Heat and Technology. 2017. Vol. 35. № 4. pp. 959–968. DOI: 10.18280/ijht.350432
3. CPR 14E. Methods for the calculation of physical effects (Yellow Book). Part 2. Heat flux from fires. Hague: GevaarlijkeStoffen, 2005. 870 p.
4. Sumskoy S.I., Zaynetdinov S.Kh., Sofyin A.S., Lisanov M.V., Agapov A.A. Simulation of Pressure Waves During Deflagration Combustion of the Clouds of Fuel-Air Mixtures. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2023. № 1. pp. 15–22. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2023-1-15-22
5. Gamera Yu.V., Petrova Yu.Yu. Express Method of an Assessment of Fragmental Damage at Emergency Depressurization of the Equipment and Pipelines with Pressurized Gas. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2016. № 4. pp. 71–76. (In Russ.).
6. Gamera Yu.V., Petrova Yu.Yu., Kantyukov R.R., Yagupova L.V. Analysis of the Possibility of an Accident Escalation in the System of the Overhead Multi-Line Gas Pipelines in the Arctic. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2021. № 12. pp. 51–57. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2021-12-51-57
7. Ramírez-Camacho J.G., Pastor E., Casal J., Amaya-Gómez R., Muñoz-Giraldo F. Analysis of domino effect in pipelines. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2015. Vol. 298. pp. 210–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.05.033
8. Laheij G.M.H., Chiaradia B., Driessen F., Dröge M.T., Rozendal S., Theune C.J., Spoelstra M.B. Domino effects in pipeline corridors. Pipeline Technology Conference. Berlin, 2017.
9. Mayants, Yu.A.  Karpov, S.V.  Alikhashkin A.S., Ovcharov S.V. Definition of preliminary test sites and zones protected during trunk pipelines tests. Vesti gazovoy nauki = News of gas science. 2014. № 1 (17). С. 88–92. (In Russ.).
10. Atamanyuk V.G., Shirshev L.G., Akimov N.I. Civil Defense. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1986. 207 p. (In Russ.).
11. Belov S.V., Devisilov V.A., Kozyakov A.F., Morozova L.L., Sivkov V.P., Spiridonov V.S., Yakubovich D.M. Life safety: textbook. 3-e izd., ispr. i dop. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 2003. 357 p. (In Russ.).
12. RTM 36.9—88. Guidelines for the design and production of blasting during the reconstruction of industrial enterprises and civil structures. Available at:  https://files.stroyinf.ru/Data1/10/10345/ (accessed: April 20, 2023). (In Russ.).
13. On Approval of the Safety Guide «Methodological Recommendations for Quantitative Analysis of the Risk of Accidents at Hazardous Production Facilities of Trunk Oil and Oil Product Pipelines»: Rostechnadzor order dated June 17, 2016 № 228. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/456007105 (accessed: April 20, 2023). (In Russ.).
DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2023-7-53-59
Year: 2023
Issue num: July
Keywords : risk-oriented approach accident fragments scattering safe distances hydraulic tests pneumatic tests multi-line gas pipeline protected zones high-speed jet pressure impact primary shock wave
Authors: