OPEN ACCESS
Dusts removal from gaseous streams is a very common operation carried out in a number of industrial plants, e.g. those ones dedicated to the manufacturing of cement and steel, in order to meet the more increasingly stringent law requirements. Therefore, in the last decades, such industries have been to face more and more often the necessity to improve their de-dusting systems inspired by the principle of the ‘maximum safety technologically feasible’, but also pushed by the increased penetration of environmental issues into the public opinion. Unfortunately, the budget dedicated for all these improvements is often very low because de-dusting is, in the major part of the practical cases, an operation having a low influence on production performances; therefore, it is seen more as a ‘necessary cost’ than a profit generator. The unavoidable consequence is that plant managers investments are dedicated to other more fruitful processes than de-dusting, addressing the low budget available for gas stream purification to the so-called revamping strategies: that is, the reuse of existing de-dusting plants, either by enhancing their efficiencies through the use of various technical tricks or by adding another pieces of equipment, rather than install new and more technologically advanced plants. This solution is considered very interesting in terms of profit since the costs for the decommissioning of the obsolete equipments does not exist (in fact the old plant remains). Obviously, all the economic benefits derived from these strategies are counterbalanced by a series of technical disadvantages. In particular, a systematic risk assessment of safety of the whole new configuration of the revamped plant is necessary. In fact, such an evaluation cannot be limited to a safe design of the new installed equipment, but it has to be extended to the already existing equipment also considering the impact that changes in process conditions (induced by the new equipment) can have on the whole plant.
In this work, the relevant problem of an explosion in the de-dusting section of a cement plant, due to the establishment of an overpressure inside the apparatus, has been considered. Particularly, using fault tree analysis, it has been evaluated the changing in the overall risk (considering, for simplicity, 1 year of mission time) of explosion referring to a hybrid-like collector realized by introducing a Fabric Filter (FF) downstream with respect to an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). Results have shown that a chain of failures in the FF section may affect relevantly the explosion risk in the collector leading to the unavoidable need for the introduction of mitigation actions into the system.
cement plants, explosions, hybrid collectors, revamping, risk assessment, safety
[1] Explosions in Cement Plants. Available at: www.fike.com/ [2] Available at: http://www.greenreport.it/
[3] Rada, E.C., Squazardo, S., Ionescu, G. & Badea, A., Economic viability of SRF co-combustion in cement factory. UPB Scientific Bulletin, Serie D, 76(3), pp. 199–206, 2014.
[4] Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Ionescu, G., Merler, G., Moedinger, F., Raboni, M. & Torretta, V., Municipal solid waste treatment by integrated solutions: energy and environmental balances. Energy Procedia, 50, pp. 1037–1044, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.06.123
[5] Copelli, S., Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Torretta V. & Schiavon, M., Reliability analysis and assessment of the explosion risk in a hybrid collector. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 151, pp. 239–250, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2495/safe150211
[6] Torretta, V., Rada, E.C., Panaitescu, V. & Apostol, T., Some considerations on particulate generated by traffic. UPB Scientific Bulletin, Series D, 74(4), pp. 241–248, 2012.
[7] Pei, B., Cui, H., Liu, H. & Yan, N. Chemical characteristics of fine particulate matter emitted from commercial cooking. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 10(3), pp. 559–568, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0829-y
[8] Fuller, G.W., Tremper, A.H., Baker, T.D., Yttri, K.E. & Butterfield, D., Contribution of wood burning to PM10 in London. Atmospheric Environment, 87, pp. 87–94, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.12.037
[9] Gutierrez Ortiz, F.J., Navarrete, B., Caňadas, L. & Salvador, L., A technical assessment of a particle hybrid collector in a pilot plant. Chemical Engineering Journal, 127, pp. 131–142, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2006.09.015
[10] Long, Z. & Yao, O., Numerical simulation of the flow and the collection mechanism inside a scale hybrid particulate collector. Powder Technology, 215–216, pp. 26–37, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2011.08.045
[11] Böttner, C.U., The role of the space charge density in particulate processes in the example of the electrostatic precipitator. Powder Technology, 135–136, pp. 285–294, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.powtec.2003.08.020
[12] Neimarlija, N., Demirdžić, I. & Mrzaferija, S., Finite volume method for calculation of electrostatic fields in electrostatic precipitators. Journal of Electrostatics, 67, pp. 37–47, 2009.
[13] Cooperman, G., A unified efficiency theory for electrostatic precipitator. Atmospheric Environment, 18, pp. 277–285, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2008.10.007
[14] Varonos, A.A., Anagnostopoulos, J.S. & Bergeles, G.C., Prediction of the cleaning efficiency of an electrostatic precipitator. Journal of Electrostatics, 55, pp. 111–133, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3886(01)00187-5
[15] Piccinini, N. & Demichela, M., Risk based decision-making in plant design. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 86, pp. 316–322, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20064
[16] Tixier, J., Dusserre, G., Salvi, O. & Gaston, D., Review of 62 risk analysis methodologies of industrial plants. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15, pp. 291–303, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-4230(02)00008-6
[17] Piccinini, N. & Ciarambino, I., Operability analysis de-voted to the development of logic trees. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 55, pp. 227–241, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0951-8320(96)00111-1
[18] CCPS, Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, Wiley, 2nd ed., 1999.
[19] Vaseley, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N.H. & Haasl, D.F., Fault Tree Handbook, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C., 1981.
[20] Rota, R. & Nano, G., Introduzione alla affidabilità e sicurezza nell’industria di processo, Pitagora Editrice, 2007.
[21] Dossier Ambiente, http://www.amblav.it/dossier.aspx