Accepted Manuscript

Investigation of multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments

Dongliang Sun, Juncheng Jiang, Mingguang Zhang, Zhirong Wang, Yinian Zhang,
Liwei Cai

PII: S0950-4230(16)30021-3
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.01.023
Reference: JLPP 3138

To appear in: Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Received Date: 15 September 2015

Revised Date: 30 December 2015
Accepted Date: 25 January 2016

Please cite this article as: Sun, D., Jiang, J., Zhang, M., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Cai, L., Investigation of
multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2016.01.023.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Investigation of multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments
Dongliang Suna, ∗, Juncheng Jiangb, Mingguang Zhangb, Zhirong Wangb, Yinian

Zhanga, Liwei Caia

(aState Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Risk Assessment and Control on Chemical Process, School of Resources and Environmental

Engineering, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China
b
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban and Industrial Safety, Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Hazardous Chemicals Safety and Control, College of Safety Science and

PT
Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, Jiangsu, China)

ABSTRACT
A model of multiple domino scenarios and the risk of the domino effect, which is a sequential chain escalating

RI
from the primary unit to the last unit, is presented in this paper. The trajectories of fragments from all units, the
ground distribution of projectiles, and the risk of the sequential chain of the domino effect were calculated using

SC
Monte Carlo simulations. The results showed that the range affected by the fragments from each tank included the
other tanks, meaning that fragments from one tank could hit the other tanks and cause multiple accidents, and that
the sequential chain of the domino effect could indeed happen. The distributions of ground impacts showed that
tank fragments were projected over long distances, up to 1200 m from the source. The spatial distribution of the

U
kinetic energy at ground impact for tank fragments was also obtained. Moreover, the magnitudes of the
AN
probabilities of the primary, secondary, third, and fourth accidents in the domino chain were respectively about
10–7, 10–11, 10–15, and 10–19. These results showed that for neighboring domino effect units in the same accident
chain, the risk of the most recent domino effect was 104 times that of the following domino effect.
M

Keywords: risk assessment; multiple domino scenarios; industrial explosion; fragments.

1. Introduction
D

A large number of dangerous chemicals are used or produced in chemical industrial parks, where massive
complexes of chemical process equipment are concentrated in a relatively small area. When BLEVE (boiling
TE

liquid expanding vapor explosion) occurred in a vessel containing LPG (liquefied petroleum gas), fragments were
generated due to tank fragmentation. These fragments have high velocity, high kinetic energy, and large
penetrating power and can be projected over long distances, damaging other equipment and facilities and causing
EP

severe consequences in a domino effect (Antonioni et al., 2009; Cozzani et al., 2006; Nguyen et al., 2009).
Fragment projection is an important cause of large numbers of casualties, property damage, equipment breakage,
and domino effects in industrial accidents (Pietersen, 1988).
C

Each cycle of the domino effect caused by fragments includes three considerations: the source, the fragment
trajectory, and the target:
AC

● The source: fragment generation from the original explosion;

● Fragment trajectory: fragment projection;
● The target: impact of fragments on a target vessel, which may penetrate or perforate the vessel, creating
secondary incident(s).
The fragments can hit the target equipment, initiate the secondary scenario, i.e. cause the domino effect.
Actually, the domino effect of multiple accidental scenarios (e.g. the third or fourth accident) can also be formed.
For example, a typical multiple domino effect, the large scale LPG BLEVEs occurred in the 2011 Tohoku
earthquakes in Japan (Li et al., 2015). After the 2011 Tohoku earthquakes, several chemical and oil complexes on
the Pacific Ocean shoreline of northeast Japan experienced massive losses. In Chiba, a refinery operated by
∗
Corresponding author at: Mail Box 563, No. 130 Meilong Road, Xuhui District, East China University of Science and Technology,
Shanghai 200237, China.
E-mail address: dongliangsun@ecust.edu.cn (Dongliang Sun).
 2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cosmo Oil lost 17 LPG storage vessels which were either heavily damaged or totally destroyed by fires and
explosions in the refinery (Li et al., 2015):
● At 14:46, an earthquake of the fifth degree on the seismic scale occurred in the Pacific Ocean off the coast
of the Tohoku region.
- Many of the braces that were diagonally supporting the legs holding Vessel 364 filled with water on that day
(normally filled with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)) fractured. (Notes: At the time of the earthquake, Vessel 364
was under regulatory inspection and was filled with water, instead of LPG.)
● At 15:15, another earthquake of the fourth degree on the seismic scale occurred off the coast of Ibaraki
Prefecture.

PT
- Several legs holding up Vessel 364 bent and the vessel collapsed. The collapse led to the damage of several
pipes near the vessel which caused LPG leakage.
- Leaking LPG spread out and caught fire near Vessel 364.

RI
- Due to the fire, the LPG vessel adjacent to Vessel 364 exploded, spreading fire from one vessel to another.
- Due to the spreading fire, a number of neighboring LPG vessels exploded, further expanding the fire.

SC
- Efforts to extinguish the fire began immediately after the outbreak of the fire and fully extinguished on
March 21 at 10:10.
The process of the multiple domino effects of the sequent BLEVEs is described as in Table 1 (Li et al., 2015).
The situation of the accidental site is described in Fig. 1 (Li et al., 2015). Based on the published information

U
about this accident in Japan, Li et al. (2015) carried out the research to estimate the significant BLEVE
AN
phenomenon in very large scale spherical vessels comparing with the information on this event, by means of a
computer program AFFTAC (Analysis of Fire Effects on Tank Cars). Subsequently, the consequences from the
sphere BLEVE, such as the expected fireball diameter and duration and the expected blast overpressure produced
M

by the BLEVE failures, are also subjects of active research.

Table 1
Events of the multiple domino effects in the afternoon of March 11.
D

Time Event
15:47 Vessel 364 collapsed, Leaking LPG from pipes spread out and caught fire by
TE

static electricity near Vessel 364 (0 min).

16:13 Start of water fire suppression.
16:24 Preparation for evacuation due to potentials for explosion.
EP

16:36 Fire erupted from pipelines (5e10 min), Valve was closed. Commencement of
fire extinguishment on the LPG Vessels.
16:41 Report to Ichihara Fire Dept
C

16:45 Emergency evacuation

17:04 1st vessel explosion (77 min)
AC

17:12 2nd vessel explosion (85 min)

17:18 3rd vessel explosion (91 min)
17:25 4th vessel explosion (98 min)
17:43 Water mist, fire fighters evacuated
17:50 5th Vessel explosion (123 min)
 3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1. Situation of the accidental site.

PT
In recent years, significant prior research on the domino effect of secondary scenario has been undertaken to
investigate the source, the fragment trajectory, and the target. The dominant effects of secondary scenarios of
domino effect may be summarized as follows in Tables 2-4:

RI
Table 2
Summarized flow of dominant effects of significant prior research on the source (fragment generation).

SC
Year Author Reference Dominant effects of significant prior research on the source Scenario of
(fragment generation) domino effect
1971 Westin (Westin, 1971) Ruptured tank cars involved in accidents were summarized. Secondary

U
Tulacz & (Tulacz and Smith, Missiles generated by pressure component failure and its application
1980 Secondary
Smith 1980) to gas-cooled nuclear plant design were assessed.
AN
Holden
(Holden and Random variables (fragments number, shape, mass, initial velocity at
1985 and Secondary
Reeves, 1985) departure, and initial departure angles, etc.) were discussed.
Reeves
M

1986
(Holden, Random variables (fragments number, shape, mass, initial velocity at
, Holden Secondary
1986,1988) departure, and initial departure angles, etc.) were researched.
1988
D

Guidelines for evaluating the characteristics of vapor cloud

1994 CCPS (CCPS, 1994) Secondary
explosions, flash fires, and BLEVEs were developed.
TE

Hazard identification, assessment, and control for loss prevention in

1996 Lees (Lees, 1996) Secondary
process industries were derived.
Rocket missiles generated by failure of a high pressure liquid storage
EP

1998 Baum (Baum, 1998) Secondary

vessel was investigated.
Shape, range of drag factor and mass range of a representative set of
Cozzani (Cozzani et al.,
2006 fragment geometries defined on the basis of past accident data were Secondary
C

et al. 2006)
obtained.
AC

Abbasi & (Abbasi and The mechanism of the boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion
2007 Secondary
Abbasi Abbasi, 2007) (BLEVE) was explored.
Mébarki (Mébarki et al.,
2009 Probabilistic distributions of the source terms were developed. Secondary
et al. 2009a, 2009b)
Gubinelli (Gubinelli and
The reference fragmentation patterns of the vessels were identified,
2009 & Cozzani, 2009a, Secondary
and the fragment number and drag factors were assessed.
Cozzani 2009b)
Abdolha
(Abdolhamidzadeh The roots, triggers, and other aspects of a domino accident were
2012 midzadeh Secondary
et al., 2012) investigated.
et al.
More specific and accurate probabilistic models of the number of
2012 Sun et al. (Sun et al., 2012) Secondary
fragments from a horizontal cylindrical vessel explosion were
 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
developed by collecting and analyzing data from past accidents
leading to fragment projection, and a more reasonable probability
density function for the number of fragments from a spherical vessel
explosion was proposed.

Table 3
Summarized flow of dominant effects of significant prior research on fragment trajectories.
Year Author Reference Dominant effects of significant prior research on fragment trajectories Scenario of
domino effect

PT
(Baker et al., The pressure wave and fragment effects of exploding propellant tanks
1977 Baker et al. Secondary
1977) and gas storage vessels was investigated.
Holden and (Holden and Fragment hazards from failures of pressurized liquefied gas vessels

RI
1985 Secondary
Reeves Reeves, 1985) were investigated.
1986, (Holden, Incident experience relevant to major hazard plant was reviewed for
Holden Secondary

SC
1988 1986, 1988) assessment of missile hazards.
Preliminary design guidelines for fragment velocity and the extent of
1988 Baum (Baum, 1988) Secondary
the hazard zone was developed.

U
1995 Baum (Baum, 1995) The velocity of a detached end-cap was explored. Secondary
(Van den
AN
Van den
Bosch and
1997 Bosch and Methods for the calculation of physical effects were summarized. Secondary
Weterings,
Weterings
1997)
M

The velocity of end-cap and rocket missiles generated by failure of a

(Baum, gas pressurized vessel containing particulate material, and the
1999 Baum Secondary
1999a, 1999b) velocity of end-cap and rocket missiles from failure of a horizontal
D

pressure vessel containing a high temperature liquid were studied.

The velocity of large missiles resulting from axial rupture of gas
TE

2001 Baum (Baum, 2001) Secondary

pressurized cylindrical vessels was considered.
(Hauptmanns, The flight of missiles from the explosion of cylindrical vessels was
2001 Hauptmanns Secondary
2001a, 2001b) analyzed and the flight of missiles from tank explosions was treated.
EP

(Stawczyk, LPG tank explosion hazards was evaluated using an experimental

2003 Stawczyk Secondary
2003) approach.
Initial projection velocities (m/s) and maximum projection distances
C

Cozzani et (Cozzani et
2006 (m) of fragments generated in the burst of a 250m3 propane vessel Secondary
al. al., 2006)
AC

were derived.
Abbasi & (Abbasi and The consequence assessment of the boiling liquid expanding vapor
2007 Secondary
Abbasi Abbasi, 2007) explosion (BLEVE) was explored.
Blast-wave overpressure and fragment initial velocities for a BLEVE
Genova et (Genova et
2008 event were obtained using empirical correlations derived from a Secondary
al. al., 2008)
simplified model of released energy
(Mébarki et
Mébarki et The trajectory equations and ground distributions of the fragments
2009 al., 2009a, Secondary
al. were proposed and evaluated.
2009b)
(Qian et al., Fragment projectiles from a spherical tank BLEVE were analyzed
2009 Qian et al. Secondary
2009) using Monte-Carlo simulations.
2010 Liu et al. (Liu et al., The projectile fragments from a cylindrical tank BLEVE accident Secondary
 5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2010) were analyzed using Monte-Carlo simulations.
The use of a barrier net between the accident source and target vessel
to compensate for the lack of actual distance was investigated. This
(Qian et al.,
2010 Qian et al. method of diverting fragments from a vessel explosion was proposed Secondary
2010)
on the analysis of fragment trajectories using Monte-Carlo
simulations.
The effects of algorithms for movement approach, fragment rotation,
(Sun et al., wind, and number of simulation runs on fragment trajectory (the
2012 Sun et al. Secondary
2012) ground distributions of fragments) were explored using Monte-Carlo

PT
simulations.

Table 4

RI
Summarized flow of dominant effects of significant prior research on the target (domino effect of secondary scenario caused by
fragment impact or rupture of target).

SC
Year Author Reference Dominant effects of significant prior research on the target Scenario of
(fragment impact or rupture of target) domino effect
Empirical equations for the perforation of mild steel plates were
1985 Neilson (Neilson, 1985) Secondary

U
developed.
Impacts on stainless steel plates subjected to rigid missiles at low
Lepareux et (Lepareux et
AN
1989 velocity were studied using experimental and numerical Secondary
al. al.,1989)
approaches.
Scilly and (Scilly and A methodology for predicting domino effects from pressure vessel
1992 Secondary
M

Crowther Crowther, 1992) fragmentation was proposed.

Bukharev & (Bukharev and A model for penetration of a metal barrier by a rod projectile was
1995 Secondary
Zhukov Zhukov, 1995) established.
D

Gubinelli et (Gubinelli et al., A simplified model for the assessment of the impact probability of
2004 Secondary
al. 2004) fragments was developed
TE

Average values of impact probability respectively on a column, and a fixed

Cozzani et (Cozzani et al.,
2006 roof atmospheric tank of fragments due to BLEVE scenarios and Secondary
al. 2006)
mechanical explosions were calculated.
EP

Detailed design criteria for the improvement of layout in the

framework of inherent safety were identified and discussed.
Cozzani et (Cozzani et al.,
2007 Simple rules of thumbs were obtained for the preliminary Secondary
C

al. 2007)
assessment of safety distances and of critical inventories with
AC

respect to the escalation of fires and explosions.

Abbasi & (Abbasi and The consequence assessment and management of the boiling
2007 Secondary
Abbasi Abbasi, 2007) liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) was explored.
Mébarki et (Mébarki et al., A probabilistic model for the vulnerability of metal plates under
2007 Secondary
al. 2007) the impact of cylindrical projectiles was established.
Mébarki et (Mébarki et al., Reliability analysis of metallic targets under metallic rods impact
2008 Secondary
al. 2008) towards a simplified probabilistic approach was implemented.
Probabilistic models of fragment impact were developed in the
Mébarki et (Mébarki et al., target term, a calculation of the impact probability was
2009 Secondary
al. 2009a, 2009b) implemented, and its effects on the impact probability were
evaluated.
2009 Nguyen et (Nguyen et al., A simplified plastic model to assess the rupture probability with Secondary
 6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
al. 2009) high reliability was proposed, and its influence on penetration
depth was investigated.
The application of an inherent safety approach for the prevention
of escalation events leading to domino accidents was explored.
Reference primary scenarios were analyzed and escalation vectors
Cozzani et (Cozzani et al., were defined. Inherent safety distances were defined and proposed
2009 Secondary
al. 2007) as a metric to express the intensity of the escalation vectors.
Simple rules of thumb were presented for a preliminary screening
of these distances. Swift reference indices for layout screening

PT
with respect to escalation hazard were also defined.
(Qian et al., Probability of fragment impact on target and its influential factors
2009 Qian et al. Secondary
2009) were analyzed using Monte-Carlo simulations.

RI
Zhang and (Zhang and
2009 Domino effect impact probability was investigated Secondary
Chen Chen, 2009)

SC
Bahman et (Bahman et al., A method for assessing the domino effect risk in chemical process
2010 Secondary
al. 2010) industry was proposed and applied
Probability of fragment impact on target and its influential factors
2010 Liu et al. (Liu et al., 2010) Secondary

U
were analyzed using Monte-Carlo simulations.
The use of a barrier net between the accident source and target
AN
vessel to compensate for the lack of actual distance was
(Qian et al.,
2010 Qian et al. investigated. This method of diverting fragments from a vessel Secondary
2010)
explosion was proposed on the analysis of probabilities of
M

fragment impact using Monte-Carlo simulations.

Probabilistic models of the domino effect caused by fragments
(Chen et al., from a chemical vessel explosion and the consequences of gap and
D

2011 Chen et al. Secondary

2011) volume of storage tanks on the domino effect were developed and
evaluated.
TE

Shahabaldin (Shahabaldin et
Risk impacts of construction of new plant in an existing chemical
2012 et al., and al., and Baesi et Secondary
plant have been assessed using a multi-plant QRA.
Baesi et al. al., 2012)
EP

The effects of algorithms for movement approach, fragment

rotation, wind, and number of simulation runs on target terms (the
probability of impact between the fragments and the target, and
C

the rupture probability of the impacted target), and the influence of

2012 Sun et al. (Sun et al., 2012) Secondary
calculation parameters (objective volume, degree of filling of the
AC

source vessel, and the type of explosion) on the target terms

(probability of fragment impact and rupture probability of the
target) were explored using Monte-Carlo simulations.
Salzano et (Salzano et al. , Domino effects related to explosions in the framework of land use
2013 Secondary
al. 2013) planning were discussed.

It is shown in Tables 2-4 that the mechanism of fragment generation from accidental explosion, projection,
impact, and damage to equipment has been explored by many researchers. The dominant effects of domino effect
of secondary scenario may be roughly summarized as follows (four stages):
● Probabilistic models have been developed for fragment generation, including the number of fragments, their
shape and size, mass, initial velocity at departure, initial (horizontal and vertical) departure angles,
 7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
aerodynamic lift and drag coefficients, and the degree of filling of the source vessel.
● Trajectory equations of the fragments, probabilistic models of fragment impact, and a simplified plastic
model for assessing rupture probability with high reliability have been proposed, and the ground
distributions of fragments, their impacts, and their damage probabilities have been assessed. The effects of
various other factors have also been evaluated.
● Specific probabilistic models of the number of fragments from horizontal cylindrical and spherical vessel
explosions have been derived. The effects of various parameters on the ground distributions of fragments,
the probability of impact onto the target, and the rupture probability of the impacted target have been
explored.

PT
● The mechanisms of the domino effect caused by fragments have been explored and various explanatory
models developed.
Based on these earlier achievements, secondary domino scenarios have been studied almost exclusively;

RI
multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments have seldom been investigated except the work implemented by
Li et al. (2014). To provide a comprehensive assessment of the risk of a domino effect of multiple accidental

SC
scenarios caused by fragments, the detailed structures of the present work are as follows:
● The model of multiple domino scenarios as a sequential chain of domino effects;
● Trajectory and ground distribution of fragments for chains of domino effects;
● Risk of sequential chains of the domino effect caused by fragments (Fragment impact, penetration, and

U
damage from the primary unit to the n-th unit).
AN
● Case study and results analysis.
An industrial site at Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited including four spherical vessels was taken as
an example. A model of multiple domino scenarios as a sequential chain of domino effects and a model of domino
M

effect risk as a sequential chain escalating from the primary unit to the last unit were proposed. According to the
equations of motion of the fragments, fragment trajectories, and targets (ground distributions of fragments), the
probability of impact with the target (nearby equipment), the subsequent rupture probability of the impacted target,
D

and the domino effect risk caused by fragments were investigated for each accident unit in the chain using Monte
Carlo simulation. The results obtained can be used as guidelines for risk mitigation and control.
TE

2. Multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments

2.1. Process of multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments
The model of multiple domino scenarios as a sequential chain of domino effects can be expressed as in Eq.
EP

(1):
Unit 1 (primary explosion→fragments)
→ (damage) Unit 2 (secondary explosion→fragments)
C

→(damage) Unit 3 (third explosion→fragments)

→(damage) Unit 4 (fourth explosion→fragments) (1)
AC

→......
→(damage) Unit (n-1) ((n-1)-th explosion→fragments)
→(damage) Unit n
When a vessel explodes, many fragments will be generated, and they can be projected over long distances,
damaging a facility nearby. When this facility is damaged, a secondary explosion will occur, and many more
fragments will be generated, causing the third, fourth, … , n-th accident. This is called a multiple domino scenario
because it is a sequential chain of domino effects (see Fig. 2).
 8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Fig. 2. Sequential chain of domino effects originating from an initial vessel explosion.
2.2. Ground distributions of fragments for chains of domino effects
When the i-th (i=1,2,3,4,...,n) unit explodes, many fragments will be generated and projected over long

RI
distances. The fragment trajectory equations developed and used by Hauptmanns (2001a) were used to analyze the
ground distribution of the fragments from the i-th (i=1,2,3,4,...,n) unit, as follows:

SC
x-direction
2
d 2x  dx 
trajectory equation 2
+ k  = 0 (2)
dt  dt 

U
v p cosϕ cosθ
velocity x& (t ) = (3)
1 + ktvp cosϕ
AN
cos θ
displacement x (t ) = ln(1 + ktv p cos ϕ ) (4)
k
y-direction
M

2
d2y  dy 
trajectory equation + k  = 0 (5)
dt 2  dt 
D

v p cos ϕ sin θ
velocity y& (t ) = (6)
1 + ktv p cos ϕ
TE

sin θ
displacement y (t ) = ln(1 + ktv p cos ϕ ) (7)
k
z-direction
EP

In the ascending part

2
d 2z  dz 
trajectory equation + k  + g = 0 (8)
C

dt 2  dt 
tan(β − αgt )
z& (t ) =
AC

velocity (9)
α
1  α 2 z& (t ) 2 + 1 
displacement z (t ) = − ln   (10)
2k  (αv p sin ϕ ) 2 + 1

In the descending part

2
d 2z  dz 
trajectory equation − k  + g = 0 (11)
dt 2  dt 
1 − exp( χt − 2 β )
velocity z& (t ) = (12)
α [1 + exp( χt − 2β )]
1 1
displacement z (t ) = ln[(αv p sin ϕ ) 2 + 1] + ln[1 − α 2 z& (t ) 2 ] (13)
2k 2k
 9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Intermediate variables

α=(k/g)0.5 (14)

β=arctan(αvpsinϕ) (15)

χ=2k/α (16)
where x, y, and z are the center coordinates of the fragment; k is the drag factor; t is the flight time; and g is the

acceleration due to gravity, x, y and z: fragment coordinates; x& , y& and z& : fragment velocities; vp is the initial

PT
departure velocity; and θ and ϕ are the initial departure angles (horizontal and vertical angles).
All the ground distributions of fragments for the n explosion units can be obtained using the Monte Carlo
method.

RI
2.3. Fragment impact, penetration, and damage from the primary unit to the n-th unit
As expressed in Eq. (1), the domino effect risk of sequential chain escalation from Unit 1 to Unit n can be

SC
expressed as Eq. (17):
P(explosion, gen, Unit 1)=P(loss, Unit 1)∗P(explosion, gen)
Pdomino (Unit 1→Unit 2)= P(explosion, gen, Unit 1) ∗Pimp (Unit 1→Unit 2) ∗Prup (Unit 1→Unit 2) ∗ P(loss, Unit 2)
Pdomino (Unit 2→Unit 3)= Pdomino (Unit 1→Unit 2) ∗Pimp (Unit 2→Unit 3) ∗Prup (Unit 2→Unit 3) ∗ P(loss, Unit 3)

U
Pdomino (Unit 3→Unit 4)= Pdomino (Unit 2→Unit 3) ∗Pimp (Unit 3→Unit 4) ∗Prup (Unit 3→Unit 4) ∗ P(loss, Unit 4) (17)
AN
……
Pdomino (Unit (n-1)→Unit n)= Pdomino (Unit (n-2)→Unit (n-1)) ∗Pimp (Unit (n-1)→Unit n) ∗Prup (Unit (n-1)→Unit n) ∗ P(loss, Unit n)
……
M

where P(explosion, gen, Unit 1) is the probability of fragment generation by the Unit 1 explosion; P(loss, Unit 1) is the
frequency of loss of containment of Unit 1; P(explosion, gen) is the conditional probability of fragment generation by
the Unit 1 explosion after its loss of containment. P(loss, Unit 1) and P(explosion, gen) can be obtained from the “Purple
D

Book” (CPR 18E) (Uijt de Haag & Ale, 1999). Pdomino (Unit (i-1)→Unit i) is the risk of a domino effect developing from
Unit (i-1) to Unit i (i=2,3,4,…,n); Pimp (Unit (i-1)→Unit i) is the impact probability between the projectiles from Unit
TE

(i-1) and Unit i (i=2,3,4,…,n); Prup (Unit (i-1)→Unit i) is the rupture probability of the impacted Unit i (i=2,3,4,…,n);
P(loss, Unit i) is the probability of loss of containment of Unit i caused by projectiles from Unit (i-1) (i=2,3,4,…,n)
and can also be obtained from the “Purple Book” (CPR 18E) (Uijt de Haag & Ale, 1999).
EP

The impact probability between the projectiles and the potential target, Pimp, can be calculated using Monte
Carlo simulations in the light of Eq. (18):
N sim N
n ( j, s )
∑∑
C

N 1 if (Vt arg et ∩ V fragment ≠ φ )

and n ( j , s ) = 
s =1 j =1 (18)
Pimp =
AC

N sim 0 otherwise
where Nsim is the total number of Monte Carlo simulations; n is a parameter that indicates whether the projectile
impacts the target; N is the number of fragments; Vfragment is the fragment trajectory; and Vtarget is the target volume,
which has a given location, dimensions, and shape.
When an impact between a fragment and a target occurs, it may cause partial or complete damage (penetration
or perforation) to the target and then may result in the explosion of the target. The penetration depth of the
fragment can be expressed using Eqs. (19) or (20) established by Mébarki et al. (2007, 2008) and Nguyen et al.
(2009), and the rupture probability of the impacted target, Prup, can be expressed as in Eq. (21) developed by
Nguyen et al. (2009):
 10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
23
 E 
− d P cosη + (d P cosη ) 2 4
+ tan η  c 
π  f uε u  (19)
hP = for the case η ≠ 0
2 tan η
23
1  Ec 
hP =   for the case η = 0 (20)
πd P  fuε u 
N simu Nimp
q ( j, i )
∑∑ N imp 1 if ( Ee ≤ 0 )

PT
, E e = (et − hP ) − ecr
(21)
Prup = P ( Ee ≤ 0 ) = and q ( j , i ) = 
i =1 j =1

N simu 0 otherwise
where dp is the fragment diameter; η is the incidence angle of the fragment; fu is the ultimate strength of the target

RI
constitutive material, and εu is the ultimate strain; Ec is the kinetic energy expended when penetration occurs; Ee is
the limit state function; Nimp is the number of fragments impacting the target, which can be obtained by using Eq.

n ( j, s )

SC
N
(18) in each simulation; Nsimu is the number of Monte Carlo simulations indicating that ∑j =1 N
in Eq. (18)

is not zero in each simulation; et is the target thickness; hp is the penetration depth; and ecr is the critical plate

U
thickness.
AN
The numerical Monte Carlo algorithm for evaluating the impact probability of fragments, the rupture
probability of the impacted target, and the domino effect risk caused by fragments, has been used here, as
described in detail in the corresponding references (Mébarki et al., 2007, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2009).
M

2.4. Characteristics of random variables

The probabilistic distributions of the source terms, including the number of fragments (N), their shape and size
(fP), mass (m), initial velocity at departure (vp), initial departure angles (horizontal and vertical angles, θ and ϕ),
D

and aerodynamic coefficients (lift and drag coefficients, CL and CD), have been developed and adopted by Nguyen
et al. (2009). Based on these previous results, the same probabilistic distributions of these features of the source
TE

terms investigated and discussed by Nguyen et al. (2009) are used here.
The degree of filling of the source (f) at the time of the accident, which is important for calculation of the total
energy imparted to the fragments, is practically never known for real accidents (Hauptmanns, 2001a, b). It is
EP

therefore considered to be a feature of the source terms (i.e., a random variable) following a uniform distribution
within [0,1].
2.5. Brief statement of the application of the random variables and probabilistic models for domino effect risk
C

For an integrated chain of domino effect caused by fragments, from the primary unit (Unit 1) to the last unit
(Unit n), the loop is preceded as follows:
AC

● When an explosion of Unit 1 occurs, the probability of fragments generation can be derived: P(explosion, gen, Unit
1)=P(loss, Unit 1)∗P(explosion, gen).
● When the fragments with given number (N), shape, and size (fP) are generated from Unit 1, the initial kinetic
energy will be assigned to all the fragments. The velocity of each fragment vpj is obtained: vpj=2Ekj/mj (Ekj is the
initial kinetic energy of the j-th fragment; mj is the mass of the j-th fragment).
● The probabilistic distributions of the initial departure angles (horizontal and vertical angles, θ and ϕ),
aerodynamic coefficients (lift and drag coefficients, CL and CD), and the degree of filling of the source (f) are used
to assure the projection direction and mechanical effects on the fragments.
● Eqs. (2)-(16) for fragment trajectory are subsequently used to analyze the trajectory of each fragment
projected using the numerical algorithm of the Monte-Carlo simulations.
● Eq. (18) is applied to calculate the impact probability between the projectiles and Unit 2: Pimp (Unit 1→Unit 2).
 11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
● Eq. (21) is utilized to compute the rupture probability of Unit 2: Prup (Unit 1→Unit 2).
● The risk of domino effect from Unit 1 to Unit 2 Pdomino (Unit 1→Unit 2) is obtained: Pdomino (Unit 1→Unit 2)= P(explosion,
∗Pimp (Unit 1→Unit 2) ∗Prup (Unit 1→Unit 2) ∗ P(loss, Unit 2). Similarly, the risk of domino effect from Unit 2 to Unit 3
gen, Unit 1)

is: Pdomino (Unit 2→Unit 3) = Pdomino (Unit 1→Unit 2) ∗Pimp (Unit 2→Unit 3) ∗Prup (Unit 2→Unit 3) ∗ P(loss, Unit 3). The risk of domino
effect from Unit 3 to Unit 4 is: Pdomino (Unit 3→Unit 4)= Pdomino (Unit 2→Unit 3) ∗Pimp (Unit 3→Unit 4) ∗Prup (Unit 3→Unit 4) ∗ P(loss,
Unit 4). …… .

● The risk of domino effect from Unit (n-1) to Unit n is: Pdomino (Unit (n-1)→Unit n)= Pdomino (Unit (n-2)→Unit (n-1)) ∗Pimp
(Unit (n-1)→Unit n) ∗Prup (Unit (n-1)→Unit n) ∗ P(loss, Unit n).
3. Case study and results analysis

PT
3.1. Characteristics of the industrial site in the Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited
As a case study, the industrial site installed in Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited was considered (see
Table 5), including four spherical vessels. The four tanks were respectively labeled as A, B, C and D. The layout

RI
of the four tanks is shown in Fig. 3, and the characteristic parameters of the tanks are listed in Table 5. All four
tanks contain LPG.

SC
Table 5
Characteristic parameters of the four tanks in the farm.
Tank No. Volume/m3 Wall thickness/m Filling level Tank mass/kg Diameter/m

U
A 3000 0.008 0.8 89485 17.016
B 3000 0.008 0.8 89485 17.016
AN
C 1000 0.006 0.8 39430 11.512
D 1000 0.006 0.8 39430 11.512
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 3. Layout of the tank farm.

3.2. Trajectory and ground distribution of fragments from an industrial site
C

When the domino effect occurs in the tank farm including tanks A, B, C, and D, all the tanks will explode and
generate fragments. The shapes of the fragments are uniform distribution for any form between end-cap and
AC

flattened fragment, the size of the fragments is uniformly distributed. The trajectories of fragments from tanks A,
B, C, and D were calculated and obtained using 1000 sets of Monte Carlo simulations (see Fig. 4). Figure 4 shows
that the projected fragments from one unit can hit the other three units and cause the chain reaction of the domino
effect as multiple accidents. A first set of 1000 simulations was arbitrarily chosen to describe the corresponding
fragment trajectories and to provide a basis for further study so that each fragment trajectory can be clearly
described.
 12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Fig. 4. Trajectories of fragments from tanks A, B, C, and D using 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.

RI
Figure 5 represents the distribution of the ground impacts of the projectiles from the four tank sources, which
indicates that the fragments were well-distributed in each direction for each source. Fragments from tank A are

SC
marked in blue, fragments from tank B in red, fragments from tank C in yellow, and fragments from tank D in
green. This chain sequence of the domino effect was: A→B→C→D. Figure 5 also shows that the range affected
by the fragments from each tank included the other three tanks. Hence, the fragments from one tank could hit the

U
other tanks and cause multiple accidents, meaning that the sequential chain of the domino effect could happen in
the tank farm under study.
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 5. Distribution of the ground impacts of the fragments: zone within 1500 m of the four sources.
The distributions of the ground impacts from tanks A and B are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The fragments from
C

tanks A and B were projected over long distances, up to 1200 m from the source. Most of the fragments, about
16%, fell to the ground within 400 m of the source. Similarly, the distributions of the ground impacts from tanks C
AC

and D are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The fragments from tanks C and D were also projected over long distances, up
to 900 m from the source. Most of the fragments, about 26%, fell to the ground within 700 m of the source. The
theoretical simulations provided good results for the distances of ground impacts.
The kinetic energy of the fragments is an important factor in the amount of mechanical damage inflicted on
the target. Figures 10 and 11 show the spatial distribution of the kinetic energy at ground impact for tanks A, B, C,
and D.
 13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Fig. 6. Probability density distribution of theoretical impacts on Fig. 7. Distribution of fragments at impact for a circular sector

SC
ground vs. distance from the source for tanks A and B. for tanks A and B.

U
AN
M
D
TE

Fig. 8. Probability density distribution of theoretical impacts on Fig. 9. Distribution of fragments at impact for a circular sector
ground vs. distance from the source for tanks C and D. for tanks C and D.
C EP
AC

Fig. 10. Distribution of kinetic energy at impact for a circular Fig. 11. Distribution of kinetic energy at impact for a circular
sector for tanks A and B. sector for tanks C and D.
3.3. Risk of sequential chains of the domino effect caused by fragments from an industrial site
As shown in Table 5 and Fig. 3, each tank can be a source, but also can be a target. Hence, the number of
 14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
probable sequential chains of the domino effect in the tank farm is P4 =24 (see Fig. 12).

PT
Fig. 12. Probable sequential chains of domino effect in the tank farm.
The probable chains of domino scenarios are illustrated in Fig. 13.

RI
U SC
AN
M

(a) Tank A as the primary source (b) Tank B as the primary source
D
TE
C EP

(c) Tank C as the primary source (d) Tank D as the primary source
AC

Fig. 13. Probable chains of domino scenarios for the tank farm.
Using the method described in Section 2.3, the probabilities of sequential chains of domino effect caused by
fragments from an industrial site were calculated, along with an analysis of probabilities of fragment generation,
impact, penetration, and damage to the target. The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Risk of sequential chains of domino effect for all four units in the farm.
Chain No. Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
–7 –11 –15
1 2.50×10 8.972×10 3.137×10 9.554×10–20
2 2.50×10–7 8.972×10–11 2.681×10–15 8.166×10–20
3 2.50×10–7 7.470×10–12 2.105×10–15 6.291×10–20
–7 –12 –16
4 2.50×10 7.470×10 2.275×10 9.026×10–20
 15
–7
ACCEPTED
–12
MANUSCRIPT
–16 –20
5 2.50×10 8.740×10 2.662×10 7.503×10
–7 –12 –15
6 2.50×10 8.740×10 3.467×10 1.212×10–19
7 2.50×10–7 8.972×10–11 2.681×10–15 8.166×10–20
8 2.50×10–7 8.972×10–11 3.137×10–15 9.554×10–20
9 2.50×10–7 8.740×10–12 3.467×10–15 1.212×10–19
10 2.50×10–7 8.740×10–12 2.662×10–16 7.503×10–20
11 2.50×10–7 7.470×10–12 2.275×10–16 9.026×10–20
12 2.50×10–7 7.470×10–12 2.105×10–15 6.291×10–20
13 1.00×10–7 3.967×10–11 1.424×10–14 4.254×10–19

PT
14 1.00×10–7 3.967×10–11 1.387×10–15 5.502×10–19
–7 –11 –14
15 1.00×10 2.818×10 1.011×10 3.536×10–19
16 1.00×10–7 2.818×10–11 8.420×10–16 2.373×10–19

RI
17 1.00×10–7 3.046×10–12 8.585×10–16 3.081×10–19
18 1.00×10–7 3.046×10–12 1.208×10–15 4.337×10–19
1.00×10–7 2.818×10–11 1.011×10–14 3.536×10–19

SC
19
20 1.00×10–7 2.818×10–11 8.420×10–16 2.373×10–19
21 1.00×10–7 3.967×10–11 1.424×10–14 4.254×10–19
22 1.00×10–7 3.967×10–11 1.387×10–15 5.502×10–19

U
23 1.00×10–7 3.046×10–12 1.208×10–15 4.337×10–19
AN
24 1.00×10–7 3.046×10–12 8.585×10-16 3.081×10-19

By analyzing the results shown in Table 6, it is clear that the probability of a primary explosion of tanks A and
B with fragment generation is the highest (2.50×10–7), whereas the probability of a primary explosion of tanks C
M

and D with fragment generation is the lowest (1.00×10–7). The probability of a secondary explosion from tank A
to tank B or from tank B to tank A is the highest (8.972×10–11), whereas the probability of a secondary explosion
D

from tank C to tank D or from tank D to tank C is the lowest (3.046×10–11). The probability of a third explosion
from tank C to A to B or from tank D to B to A is the highest (1.424×10–14), whereas the probability of a third
TE

explosion from tank A to D to C or from tank B to C to D is the lowest (2.662×10–16). The probability of a fourth
explosion from tank C to A to D to B or from tank D to B to C to A is the highest (5.502×10–19), whereas the
probability of a fourth explosion from tank A to C to B to D or from tank B to D to A to C is the lowest
EP

(6.291×10–20). These results show that the magnitudes of the probabilities of the primary, secondary, third, and
fourth accidents in the domino chain were respectively about 10–7, 10–11, 10–15, and 10–19. These results also
showed that for neighboring domino effect units in the same accident chain, the risk of the most recent domino
C

effect was 104 times that of the following domino effect.

4. Conclusions
AC

Multiple domino scenarios caused by exploding tank fragments were investigated in this research as follows:
● A model of multiple domino scenarios as a sequential chain of domino effects was proposed, with the
domino effect risk of the sequential chain escalating from the primary unit to the final unit.
● The trajectories of all the unit fragments were calculated using 1000 sets of Monte Carlo simulations. The
projected fragments from one unit can hit the other units and cause the chain of domino effects as multiple
accidents. A first set of 1000 simulations was arbitrarily chosen to describe the corresponding fragment
trajectories, because it was essential for further study that each fragment trajectory be clearly described.
● The distribution of the ground impacts of the projectiles from the tank sources indicated that the fragments
were well-distributed in each direction for each source. The range affected by the fragments from each tank
included the other three tanks. Hence, the fragments from one tank could hit the other tanks and cause multiple
accidents, meaning that a sequential chain of domino effects could happen in the selected tank farm. The
 16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
distributions of the ground impacts showed that the tank fragments were projected over long distances, up to 1200
m or 900 m from the source. About 16% and 26% of the fragments fell to the ground within a distance of 400 m
and 700 m from the source. The theoretical simulations provided good results for the distance of ground impacts.
The spatial distribution of the kinetic energy of tank fragments at ground impact was also obtained.
● The probable chains of domino scenarios were illustrated (24 chains). The risk of sequential chains of
domino effects caused by fragments from the industrial site was calculated, and analyses were performed of the
probabilities of fragment generation, impact, penetration, and damage to the target. By analyzing the calculated
results, the magnitudes of the probabilities of the primary, secondary, third, and fourth accidents in the domino
chain were respectively about 10–7, 10–11, 10–15, and 10–19. These results also revealed that for neighboring domino

PT
effect units in the same accident chain, the risk of the most recent domino effect was 104 times that of the
following domino effect.

RI
5. Summary
The multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments were investigated in this work. In the future, the

SC
following issue will be focused on: even though the risk of multiple domino scenarios has been explored, it is
essential to reveal which order of magnitude of the risk of domino effect can be ignored based on the risk criterion
adopted in a plant area, in order to effectively improve the work of quantitative risk analysis, and form a normal
directive of the thresholds of the acceptable risk on the multiple domino scenarios caused by fragments broadly

U
adopted as a guideline for risk assessment and control.
AN
Acknowledgements
The financial support of the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WB1314056),
M

Fundamental Research Funds of East China University of Science and Technology (WB311115), Technology
Development Foundation of China Sinopec Qingdao Safety Engineering Institute (313038), Development of
System of Quantitative Risk Assessment of Domino Effect in Chemical Industry (B100-81414), the natural
D

science foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK2012824), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
51376088, 71001051) are gratefully acknowledged.
TE

Nomenclature
CL and CD aerodynamic coefficients (lift and drag coefficients) of fragment
dp the fragment diameter
EP

Ec the kinetic energy of fragment expended when penetration occurs

Ee the limit state function
ecr the critical plate thickness.
C

et the target thickness

f the degree of filling of the source
AC

fP fragment shape and size

fu the ultimate strength of the target constitutive material
g the acceleration due to gravity
hp the penetration depth of the fragment
k the drag factor
m fragment mass
N the number of fragments
Nimp the number of fragments impacting the target
Nsim the total number of Monte Carlo simulations
 17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
N
n ( j, s )
Nsimu
the number of Monte Carlo simulations indicating that ∑
j =1 N
in Eq. (18) is not zero in each

simulation
n a parameter that indicates whether the projectile impacts the target
P(explosion, the conditional probability of fragment generation by the Unit 1 explosion after its loss of
gen) containment
P(explosion,
the probability of fragment generation by the Unit 1 explosion
gen, Unit 1)

PT
P(loss, Unit 1) the frequency of loss of containment of Unit 1
P(loss, Unit i) the probability of loss of containment of Unit i caused by projectiles from Unit (i-1) (i=2,3,4,…,n)
Pdomino (Unit

RI
the risk of a domino effect developing from Unit (i-1) to Unit i (i=2,3,4,…,n)
(i-1)→Unit i)

Pimp the impact probability between the projectiles and the potential target

SC
Pimp (Unit
the impact probability between the projectiles from Unit (i-1) and Unit i (i=2,3,4,…,n)
(i-1)→Unit i)

Prup the rupture probability of the impacted target

Prup

U
(Unit
the rupture probability of the impacted Unit i (i=2,3,4,…,n)
(i-1)→Unit i)
AN
t the flight time of fragment
Vfragment the fragment trajectory; and
Vtarget the target volume, which has a given location, dimensions, and shape
M

vp the initial departure velocity of fragment

x, y, and z the center coordinates of the fragment

x& , y& and z& fragment velocities

D

α, β and χ intermediate variables

TE

εu the ultimate strain of the target constitutive material

η the incidence angle of the fragment
θ and ϕ the initial departure angles (horizontal and vertical angles) of fragment
EP

References
Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2007). The boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE): mechanism, consequence assessment, management. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 141, 489–519.
C

Abdolhamidzadeh, B., Hassan, C. R. C., Hamid, M. D., Farrokhmehr, S., Badri, N., & Rashtchian, D. (2012). Anatomy of a domino accident: Roots, triggers
and lessons learnt. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 90, 424-429.
AC

Antonioni, G., Spadoni, G., & Cozzani, V. (2009). Application of domino effect quantitative risk assessment to an extended industrial area. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 439–449.
Baesi, S., Abdolhamidzadeh, B., Hassan, C. R. C., Hamid, M. D., & Reniers, G. (2012). Application of a multi-plant QRA: A case study investigating the risk
impact of the construction of a new plant on an existing chemical plant's risk levels. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. (In Press).
Bahman, A., Abbasi, T., Rashtchian, D., & Abbasi, S. A. (2010). A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 182, 416–426.
Baker, W. E., Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Bessey, Westine, P. S., Parr, V. B. (1977). Workbook for predicting pressure wave and fragment effects of exploding
propellant tanks and gas storage vessels. NASA CR-134906. Washington: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Office.
Baum, M. R. (1988). Disruptive failure of pressure vessels: preliminary design guidelines for fragment velocity and the extent of the hazard zone. Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, 110, 168–176.
Baum, M. R. (1995). Rupture of a gas-pressurized cylindrical vessel: the velocity of a detached end-cap. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 8,
149–161.
Baum, M. R. (1998). Rocket missiles generated by failure of a high pressure liquid storage vessel. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 11,
 18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11–24.
Baum, M. R. (1999a). The velocity of end-cap and rocket missiles generated by failure of a gas pressurized vessel containing particulate material. Journal of
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 12, 259–268.
Baum, M. R. (1999b). Failure of a horizontal pressure vessel containing a high temperature liquid: the velocity of end-cap and rocket missiles. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 12, 137–145.
Baum, M. R. (2001). The velocity of large missiles resulting from axial rupture of gas pressurized cylindrical vessels. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 14, 199–203.
Bukharev, Y. I., & Zhukov, V. I. (1995). Model of the penetration of a metal barrier by a rod projectile with an angle of attack. Combustion, Explosion, and
Shock Waves, 31, 104–109.
Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). (1994). Guidelines for evaluating the characteristics of vapor cloud explosions, flash fires, and BLEVEs. New

PT
York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Chen, G., Zhu, J. P., Wu, J., & Wang G. D. (2011). Impact of gap and volume of storage tanks on domino effect of explosion fragments. Fire Safety Science, 20,
37–42, (in Chinese).

RI
Cozzani, V., Antonioni, G., & Spadoni, G. (2006). Quantitative assessment of domino scenario by a GIS-based software. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 19, 463–477.
Cozzani, V., Gubinelli, G., & Salzano, E. (2006). Escalation thresholds in the assessment of domino accidental events. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 28, 1-21.

SC
Cozzani, V., Tugnoli, A., & Salzano, E. (2007). Prevention of domino effect: From active and passive strategies to inherently safer design. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, 139, 209-219.
Cozzani, V., Tugnoli, A., & Salzano, E. (2009). The development of an inherent safety approach to the prevention of domino accidents. Accident Analysis and

U
Prevention, 41, 1216-1227.
Genova, B., Silvestrini, M., & Leon Trujillo, F. J. (2008). Evaluation of the blast-wave overpressure and fragments initial velocity for a BLEVE event via
AN
empirical correlations derived by a simplified model of released energy. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21, 110–117.
Gubinelli, G., & Cozzani, V. (2009a). Assessment of missile hazards: identification of reference fragmentation patterns. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 163,
1008–1018.
Gubinelli, G., & Cozzani, V. (2009b). Assessment of missile hazards: evaluation of the fragment number and drag factors. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 161,
M

439–449.
Gubinelli, G., Zanelli, S., & Cozzani, V. (2004). A simplified model for the assessment of the impact probability of fragments. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
116, 175–187.
D

Hauptmanns, U. (2001a). A procedure for analyzing the flight of missiles from explosion of cylindrical vessels. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 14, 395–402.
TE

Hauptmanns, U. A. (2001b). A Monte-Carlo based procedure for treating the flight of missiles from tank explosions. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 16,
307–312.
Holden, P. L. (1986). Assessment of missile hazards: Review of incident experience relevant to major hazard plant. Warrington: United Kingdom Atomic
EP

Energy Authority. Report no.: SRD R 477.

Holden, P. L. (1988). Assessment of missile hazards: Review of incident experience relevant to major hazard plant. Warrington: Safety and Reliability
Directorate, Health and Safety Directorate.
Holden, P. L., & Reeves, A. B. (1985). Fragment hazards from failures of pressurized liquefied gas vessels. In IchemE symposium series, 93 (pp. 205–220).
C

Lees, F. P. (1996). Loss prevention in the process industries—Hazard identification, assessment, and control, Vols. 1–3. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lepareux, M., Jamet, P., Matheron, P., Lieutenant, J. L., Couilleaux, J., & Duboelle, D. (1989). Experimental and numerical studies of impacts on stainless steel
AC

plates subjected to rigid missiles at low velocity. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 115, 105–112.
Li, X. R., Koseki, H, & Mannan, M. S. (2015). Case study: Assessment on large scale LPG BLEVEs in the 2011 Tohoku earthquakes. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 35, 257–266.
Liu, Z. Y., Huang, P., & Xu, Y. B. (2010). Monte-Carlo analysis of the projectile fragments from cylindrical tank boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion
accident. Explosion and Shock Waves, 30, 569–576, (in Chinese).
Mébarki, A., Mercier, F., Nguyen, Q. B., & Ami Saada, R. (2009). Structural fragments and explosions in industrial facilities. Part I: probabilistic description of
the source terms. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 408–416.
Mébarki, A., Nguyen, Q. B., & Mercier, F. (2009). Structural fragments and explosions in industrial facilities. Part 1: projectile trajectory and probability of
impact. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 417–425.
Mébarki, A., Nguyen, Q. B., Mercier, F., Ami Saada, R., Meftah, F., & Reimeringer, M. (2007). A probabilistic model for the vulnerability of metal plates under
the impact of cylindrical projectiles. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 20, 128–134.
Mébarki, A., Nguyen, Q. B., Mercier, F., Ami Saada, R., & Reimeringer, M. (2008). Reliability analysis of metallic targets under metallic rods impact: towards a
simplified probabilistic approach. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21, 518–527.
 19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Neilson, A. J. (1985). Empirical equations for the perforation of mild steel plates. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 3, 137–142.
Nguyen, Q. B., Mébarki, A., Ami Saada, R., Mercier, F., & Reimeringer, M. (2009). Integrated probabilistic framework for domino effect and risk analysis.
Advances in Engineering Software, 40, 892–901.
Pietersen, C. M. (1988). Analysis of the LPG disaster in Mexico City. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 20, 85–107.
Qian, X. M., Xu, Y. B., & Liu, Z. Y. (2009). Monte-Carlo analysis of fragments projectile from spherical tank BLEVE. Huagong Xuebao, 60, 1057–1061, (in
Chinese).
Salzano, E., Antonioni, G., Landucci, G., & Cozzani, V. (2013). Domino effects related to explosions in the framework of land use planning. Chemical
Engineering Transections, 31, 787-792.
Scilly, N. F., & Crowther, J. H. (1992). Methodology for predicting domino effects from pressure vessel fragmentation. In Proceedings of the international
conference on hazard identification and risk analysis. Human Factors and Human Reliability in Process Safety.

PT
Shahabaldin, B., Bahman, A., Che, Rosmani, Che, H., Mahar, Diana, H., & Genserik, R. (2012). Application of a multi-plant QRA: A case study investigating
the risk impact of the construction of a new plant on an existing chemical plant’s risk levels. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1-9. (In
Press)

RI
Stawczyk, J. (2003). Experimental evaluation of LPG tank explosion hazards. Journal of Hazardous Materials, B96, 189–200.
Sun, D. L., Jiang, J. C., Zhang, M. G., Wang, Z. R., Huang, G. T., & Qiao, J. J. (2012). Parametric approach of the domino effect for structural fragments.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 25, 114–126.

SC
Tulacz, J., & Smith, R. E. (1980). Assessment of missiles generated by pressure component failure and its application to recent gas-cooled nuclear plant design.
Nuclear Energy, 19, 151–164.
Uijt de Haag, P. A. M. & Ale, B. J. M. (1999). Guidelines for quantitative risk assessment (purple book). The Hague (NL): Committee for the Prevention of

U
Disasters.
Van den Bosch, C. J. H., & Weterings, R. A. P. M. (1997). Methods for the calculation of physical effects (yellow book, CPR14E). The Hague, NL: Committee
AN
for the Prevention of Disasters.
Westin, R. A. (1971). Summary of ruptured tank cars involved in past accidents. Chicago, IL: Railroad Tank Car Safety Research and Test Project. Report no.:
RA-01-2-7.
Zhang, X. M., & Chen, G. H. (2009). The analysis of domino effect impact probability triggered by fragments. Safety Science, 47, 1026–1032, (in Chinese).
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Novelty Statement
● The mode of multiple domino scenarios was proposed.
● The domino effect risk of the sequent chain escalating from the primary unit to the last unit
was proposed.
● The magnitude of the primary, secondary, third, and fourth accident in the domino chain
were respectively about 10-7, 10-11, 10-15 and 10-19.
● For the neighboring domino effect units in the same accident chain, the risk of the last
domino effect was 104 times that of the next domino effect.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC