Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Available
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
online www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Procedia
ProcediaEngineering
Engineering 211 (2018)000–000
00 (2017) 986–995

Analysis
Analysis of
of
2017 8th Fire
Fire Safety
Safety
International System
System
Conference on forfor Storage
Storage
Fire Science andEnterprises
Enterprises of
of
Fire Protection Engineering Dangerous
Dangerous
Analysis
Analysis of
of Fire
Fire(onSafety
Safety System
System
the Development offor
Chemicals
for Storage
Storage
Performance-based Enterprises
Fire Code) of
Enterprises of Dangerous
Dangerous
Analysis
Analysis of
of Fire
Fire Safety
Safety System System for
Chemicals
for Storage
Storage Enterprises
Enterprises of
of Dangerous
Dangerous
Analysis of Fire Safety System Chemicals
for
Chemicals Storage Enterprises of Dangerous
Chemicals
Chemicals
Cong ZHANG*
Cong ZHANG*
Chemicals
Cong
Cong
Graduate Department of Chinese People's
ZHANG*
ZHANG*
Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Cong
Cong ZHANG*
ZHANG*
Graduate Department of Chinese People's Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Graduate Department of Chinese People's Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Cong ZHANG*
Graduate Department of Chinese People's Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Graduate Department of Chinese People's Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Abstract Graduate Department of Chinese People's Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Abstract Graduate Department of Chinese People's Armed Police Force Academy, Langfang, 065000, China
Abstract
Abstract
In recent years, fire and explosion accidents of warehouses caused by dangerous chemicals frequently occur, such as "4·22" Jingjiang
Abstract
In recent years, fire and explosion accidents of warehouses caused by dangerous chemicals frequently occur, such as "4·22" Jingjiang
Abstract
storage
In house
recenthouse explosion
years,explosion accident, and
fire and explosion Tianjinofport
accidents "8·12" caused
warehouses fire explosion accident.
by dangerous Therefore,
chemicals a mature and perfect
frequently fire risk assessment
storage
Abstract
In recent
method years,
should fire
be and accident,
explosion
established to and
further Tianjin
accidents of
improveport
fire"8·12"
warehouses
safety fire explosion
caused
and by accident.
dangerous
eliminate fire Therefore,
chemicals
safety risks. To a matureoccur,
frequently
evaluate occur,
the
such asfire
andfire
perfect
such as
safety
"4·22"
"4·22"
of
Jingjiang
risk assessment
Jingjiang
dangerous
In
In recent
storage
method
recent years,
house
should
years, fire
explosion
be and explosion
accident,
established
fire and to
explosion accidents
and
further Tianjinof
improve
accidents of warehouses
port
fire"8·12"
safety
warehouses caused
and
caused by dangerous
fire explosion
eliminate
by fire
dangerous chemicals
accident.
safetyTherefore,
risks.
chemicals Tofrequently
evaluate
frequently occur,
a matureoccur,
the such
andfire
perfect as
safety
such as "4·22"
fire
of Jingjiang
risk assessment
dangerous
"4·22" Jingjiang
storage
chemical
storage
method house
should explosion
warehouse,
house explosion
be accident,
identification
accident,
established to and
of
and
further Tianjin
hazard
Tianjin
improveport
source,
port
fire"8·12"
fire
"8·12"
safetyandfire
fire
and explosion
explosion
explosion
eliminate accident.
model,
accident.
fire safetyTherefore,
analytic hierarchy
Therefore,
risks. To a
a mature
process,
mature
evaluate and
and
the perfect
and
perfect
fire safetyfire
safety
fire
of risk
risk assessment
evaluation score
assessment
dangerous
chemical
In recent
storage
over
methodan warehouse,
years,
house
interval
should fire
explosion
have
be andidentification
explosion
beenaccident,
established applied
to of
and
in hazard
accidents
Tianjin
this
further source,
of
paper.
improve fire
warehouses
port "8·12"
Combining
fire safetyand explosion
caused
fire
with
and by
the model,
dangerous
explosion
actual
eliminate analytic
chemicals
accident.
situation
fire safety of ahierarchy
Therefore,
risks. To a
dangerous process,
frequently
mature occur,
and
chemical
evaluate the and safety
such
perfect
fire as evaluation
"4·22"
fire
warehouse
safety of risk score
Jingjiang
assessment
enterprise,
dangerous fire
chemical
method
over
method warehouse,
should
ansituation
interval
should be
have
be identification
established
been
established to
applied ofthis
to further
in
further hazard source,
improve
paper.
improve fire fire andand
safety
Combining
fire safety explosion
with
and eliminate
the model,
fire
actual
eliminate analytic
safety
situation
fire safety ahierarchy
risks. To
ofmeasures
risks. dangerous process,
To evaluate the
chemical
evaluate the andwarehouse
fire safety of
safety evaluation
dangerous score
enterprise, fire
storage
safety
chemical house explosion
of
warehouse, dangerous accident,
identification and
chemical of Tianjin
hazard port
warehouse
source,"8·12"
is assessed,
fire andfire explosion
and a
explosionseries accident.
of
model, Therefore,
targeted
analytic hierarchyaare
mature
put andfire
forward.
process, and safety
perfect
This
safety of
fire dangerous
risk
paper assessment
provides
evaluation scorea
over
safetyan
chemical
chemical interval
situation have
warehouse,
of
warehouse, been
dangerous applied
identification
chemical
identification in
ofthis paper.
hazard
warehouse
ofthis
hazard Combining
source, fire and
is assessed,
source, with
and
firechemical
andand the
explosion actual
a series
explosion situation
model,
ofsituation
model, targeted of
analytic
analytic a dangerous
hierarchy
measures
hierarchy chemical
process,
areprocess,
put and
forward.warehouse
safety
andwarehouse
safety enterprise,
evaluation
This inspection
paper fire
score
provides
evaluation scorea
method
scientific
over an should
basis
interval be
for established
havethe fire
been risktoassessment
applied further
in improve
of
paper. fire
dangeroussafety
Combining witheliminate fire
warehouse,
the actual safety
and risks.
ensure
of a To
to evaluate
establish
dangerous a the fire
perfect
chemical safety of dangeroussystem,
enterprise, fire
safety
over ansituation
an
scientificinterval of dangerous
have
basis for been
thesafety chemical
applied
fire risk in warehouse
this
assessment paper. is assessed,
Combining
of dangerous andthe
with a series
actualofsituation
targeted ofmeasures
of aa to are put
dangerous forward.
chemical This inspection
warehouse paper provides
enterprise, a
fire
over
chemical
and can
safety interval
manage
situation have
warehouse,
fire
of been
dangerous applied
identification in
ofthis
effectively.
chemical paper.
hazard
warehouse is firechemical
Combining
source, andwith
assessed, and warehouse,
the
explosion actual
model,
aa series of and ensure
situation
analytic
targeted establish
dangerous
hierarchy
measures are a perfect
chemical
process,
put forward. safety
andwarehouse
safety
This evaluation
paper system,
enterprise, fire
score
provides aa
scientific
safety
and can
safety basis for
situation
manage
situation of thesafety
fire
of fire risk
dangerous
dangerous assessment
chemical
effectively.
chemical of dangerous
warehouse
warehouse is
is chemical
assessed,
assessed, and
and warehouse,
a series
series of
of and ensure
targeted
targeted to establish
measures
measures are
are a perfect
put
put forward.
forward. safety
This
This inspection
paper
paper system,
provides
provides a
over an
scientificinterval
basis have
for the been
fire applied
risk in this
assessment paper.
of Combining
dangerous with
chemical the actual
warehouse, situation
and of
ensure a dangerous
to establishchemical
a perfect warehouse
safety enterprise,
inspection fire
system,
and can manage
scientific
scientific basis firethe
for thesafety
basisAuthors.
for fire
fire effectively.
risk
risk assessment
assessment of
of dangerous
dangerous chemical
chemical warehouse,
warehouse, and
and ensure
ensure to
to establish
establish aa perfect
perfect safety
safety inspection
inspection system,
system,
safety
and
©
© can
2017 situation
manage
The of dangerous
fire safety chemical
effectively.
Published by warehouse
Elsevier is
Ltd. assessed,
Selectionand a series
and/or of targeted
peer-review measures
under are put forward.
responsibility of This
the paper
Collegeprovides
of a
Safety
© 2018
and
and can
2017
scientific
The
can manage
The Authors.
manage fire Published
firethesafety
Authors. safety
basisEngineering
for fire
byby
effectively.
Published
effectively.
risk
Elsevier
assessment ElsevierLtd.
Ltd. Selection
of dangerous chemical and/or peer-review
warehouse, and ensure under responsibility
to establish a perfect of the inspection
safety College ofsystem,
Safety
Science
Peer-review
© 2017 and
The under
Authors. of
responsibility
PublishedNanjing
of the Tech University
organizing
by Elsevier committee of ICFSFPE 2017.
Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the College of Safety
Science
and
© 2017 and Engineering
can manage
The fire safety
Authors. of Nanjing
effectively.
Published Tech University
by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the College of Safety
© 2017 The
Science
© Authors. Published
and Engineering
2017 The Authors. by Elsevier
of Nanjing
Published Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review
Tech University
by Elsevier Ltd. fire peer-review under
Selection under responsibility
and/or responsibility of
of the
the College
College of
of Safety
Safety
Science
Keywords:
Science and
and Engineering
warehouse,
Engineering of
dangerous
of Nanjing
chemicals,
Nanjing Tech
fire,
Tech University
explosion,
University
risk assessment
Keywords:
Science
© 2017 Thewarehouse,
and dangerous
Engineering
Authors. ofchemicals,
Nanjing
Published fire,
Tech
by Elsevier explosion,
Ltd. fire
University risk assessment
Selection and/or
peer-review under responsibility of the College of Safety
Keywords: warehouse, dangerous chemicals, fire, explosion, fire risk assessment
Science
Keywords:and Engineering
warehouse, of
dangerous Nanjing
chemicals, Tech
fire, University
explosion, fire risk assessment
Keywords: warehouse, dangerous chemicals, fire, explosion, fire risk assessment
Keywords: warehouse, dangerous chemicals, fire, explosion, fire risk assessment
Nomenclature
Nomenclature
Keywords: warehouse, dangerous chemicals, fire, explosion, fire risk assessment
Nomenclature
W total mass of fuel in the steam cloud (kg)
Nomenclature
W f
Nomenclature total mass of fuel in the steam cloud (kg)
WffTNT
Nomenclature
W weight
total massof TNT
of fuelequivalent
in the steam of vapor
cloudcloud
(kg) (kg)
W
W weight
total of TNT
mass of equivalent
fuel in the of vapor
steam cloud cloud
(kg) (kg)
Q
W fff
TNT
Nomenclature the heat
total
weight mass
ofofTNT
combustion
of fuel in the
equivalent of steam
steam
of (J/kg)
cloud
vapor (kg)
cloud (kg)
Q
W
W f TNT the
total
weightheat
mass
ofof combustion
of
TNT fuel in the
equivalent of steam
steam
of (J/kg)
cloud
vapor (kg)
cloud (kg)
Q
W
f
the
weightexplosion
of TNT heat of TNT,
equivalent of4.52MJ/kg
vapor cloud
Q (kg) (kg)
TNT
Q
W
TNT
f TNT the
the
weight
total heat of
explosioncombustion
ofofTNT
mass heat of
equivalent
ofcombustion
fuel in the ofof
TNT, steam
ofspot
steam (J/kg)
4.52MJ/kg
vapor
cloud cloud (kg)
Q
R
Q
TNT
ffTNT the
the heat
distance
heat of from
combustionexplosion
of steam
steam (J/kg)
(m)
(J/kg)
Q
R
W fTNT the explosion
distance
the explosion
weightheatofof heat
from
combustion
TNT of TNT,
explosion
equivalent 4.52MJ/kg
spot
of steam (m)
(J/kg)
of4.52MJ/kg
vapor cloud (kg)
Q
m
QTNT
fTNT
TNT the
the TNT
explosion heat
equivalent
heat of
of TNT,
weight
TNT, (kgTNT)
4.52MJ/kg
R
m
Q TNT
the distance
TNTof
explosion
heat from
heatexplosion
equivalent
combustion ofweight
TNT, spot (J/kg)
(kgTNT)(m)
4.52MJ/kg
of steam
R
E
R
fTNT the distance
explosive
the distance from
energy
from explosion
(kJ)
explosion spot
spot (m)
E m
QTNT
R
m TNT the
the
TNT
explosive equivalent
distanceenergy
explosion
TNT heat(kJ)
from
equivalent
weight
explosion
ofweight spot (m)
(kgTNT)
TNT, 4.52MJ/kg
(kgTNT)(m)
E Q
m TNT’
TNT the explosive
TNT
explosive equivalent
equivalent
energy (kJ)weight energy of
(kgTNT) TNT, 4686KJ/kg
Q
E m
R TNT’
TNT the explosive
TNT
distance
explosive equivalent
equivalent
from
energy weight
explosion
(kJ) energy
spot of
(kgTNT)(m)TNT, 4686KJ/kg
E
Q R0TNT’ the explosive
distance
explosive
the between
energy (kJ)
equivalent the energy
explosion of position
TNT, and the center of the explosion during testing explosion (m)
4686KJ/kg
E
Q R
m 0TNT’ the distance
explosive
the TNT between
energy
equivalent
explosive (kJ) the
weight
equivalent explosion
(kgTNT)
energy of position
TNT, and the center of the explosion during testing explosion (m)
4686KJ/kg
Q m
R TNT
TNT0’ the weight
explosive
distance of TNT at
equivalent
between the
the time
energy of
explosion testing
of TNT, explosion
and the(kgTNT)
4686KJ/kg
position center of the explosion during testing explosion (m)
Q
E m
R
TNT
0TNT0 ’ the weight
explosive
explosive
the distance of TNT
energy
between at
equivalent
(kJ) the
the time
energy of
explosion testing
of TNT, explosion
4686KJ/kg
position and the(kgTNT)
center of the explosion during testing explosion (m)
∆p
R
TNT
explosion
the distance overpressure
between the during
explosionactual explosion
position and (kPa)
the center
center of
of the
the explosion
explosion during
during testing
testing explosion
explosion (m)
0
Q m
∆p
R 0 TNT0’ the weight
explosion
distance
explosiveof TNT
overpressure
between at
equivalent the
the time
during of
explosion
energy testing
actual explosion
explosion
position
oftesting
TNT, (kgTNT)
and (kPa)
the(kgTNT)
4686KJ/kg (m)
m
m
△p0TNTTNT0 the
the weight
explosion
weight of
of TNT
TNT at
at the
overpressure
the time
at
time of
the
of location
testing explosion
of explosion
explosion during
(kgTNT) a test
∆p
m0TNT0
R
△p 0 explosion
the weight
distance
explosionoverpressure
ofbetween
TNT theduring
at the
overpressure time
explosionactual
of
at the testingexplosion
explosion
position
location ofand (kPa)
the(kgTNT)
center
explosion of the
during explosion during testing explosion (m)
a test
∆p
∆p
TNT0
0
ri(i=1,2,3) explosion
the explosionoverpressure
explosion
explosion damage radius
overpressure during
during actual
actual explosion
explosion (kPa)
(kPa)
△p
∆p
mTNT0
ri(i=1,2,3)
0 the
explosion
the
the weight overpressure
overpressure
of TNT
explosion damage at the at the
during
time
radius of location
actual
testing of explosion
explosion
explosion(kPa) during a test
(kgTNT)
△p
C.I the explosion
consistency
the explosion overpressure
index
overpressure at
at the
the location
location of
of explosion
explosion during
during a test
during aa test
0
C.I ri(i=1,2,3)
△p
∆p
△p 0 explosion
the explosion
consistency damage
overpressure
overpressure
index radius
during
at actual
the explosion
location of (kPa)
explosion test
λC.Iri(i=1,2,3)
0
ri(i=1,2,3) the explosion
maximum
the explosion damage
eigenvalue
explosion damage radius
radius
λC.I max
ri(i=1,2,3)
△p consistency
the
maximum index
overpressure
eigenvalue
damage radius at the location of explosion during a test
C.I
max0
R.I consistency
mean random
consistency index
consistency index
index
λC.I
R.I maximum
mean random
consistency eigenvalue
consistency
index index
λλri(i=1,2,3)
max
C.R
max
the explosion
maximum
consistency
maximum
damage
eigenvalue
ratio
eigenvalue
radius
R.I
λC.R
C.Imax mean random
maximum
consistency consistency index
ratio
eigenvalue
index
R.I
W(Ai)
max
R.I mean
mean random
total weight
random ofconsistency
the first level
consistency index
of the criterion layer
index
C.R
λW(Ai)
R.I consistency
total
mean
maximum weight
random ratio
of the first level
consistency
eigenvalue of the criterion layer
index
C.R
W(Bi)
max
C.R consistency
total weight
consistency ratio
of
ratio the second level of the criterion layer
W(Ai)
W(Bi)
C.R
R.I total
total weight
weight
consistency
mean random of
of
ratiothe
the first
second
consistency level of the
level
index criterion
of the layer
criterion layer
W(Ai)
W(Ai) total weight of the first level of the criterion layer
W(Bi)
W(Ai)
C.R
W(Bi)
total
total weight
consistency
total weight of the
of
weightratio
of
the first
the
the
second
first
second
level
level of
of the
level
level the
of
criterion
of the
criterion
the
layer
criterion layer
layer
criterion layer
*W(Bi)
W(Ai) total
Corresponding author.
W(Bi) weight
Tel.:
total weight of
of the
+86-15081689157.
the
the second
second
first levellevel
level
of of
of
the the
the criterion
criterion
criterion layer
layer
layer
* Corresponding author. Tel.:
E-mail address: 1540552557@qq.com +86-15081689157.
* W(Bi)
Corresponding total
author. weight
Tel.:
E-mail address: 1540552557@qq.com of the
+86-15081689157.second level of the criterion layer
* Corresponding
E-mail author. Tel.: +86-15081689157.
address: 1540552557@qq.com
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-15081689157.
* Corresponding
E-mail address:
1877-7058 author.
TheTel.: +86-15081689157.
1540552557@qq.com
© 2018 Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
E-mail address: 1540552557@qq.com
E-mail
* address:
Corresponding 1540552557@qq.com
Peer-review underauthor. Tel.: +86-15081689157.
responsibility of the organizing committee of ICFSFPE 2017
E-mail address: 1540552557@qq.com
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.12.101
 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995 987
Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

W(Ci) the weight coefficients of the scheme layer

Ai (i=1 to 3) the first layer of criterion layer
Bi (i=1 to 6) the second layer of criterion layer
Ci (i=1 to 14) the solution layer
Vs the score of system safety evaluation
PEI the score of evaluation index EI
WEI the total weight of evaluation index EI
Greek symbols
α vapor cloud equivalent coefficient, 0.04
β dimensionless similarity ratio of actual explosion to experimental explosion

1. Dangerous chemicals warehouse industry

1.1. Main features of dangerous chemical warehouses

With the development of industry, the number of warehouse places is increasing rapidly, and it brings a series of fire
hazards. The existence of some hidden trouble is not static, but in continual changing processes, which also puts forward
higher requirements for fire supervision, inspection and management[1-4]. Warehouses and yards in storage enterprises are
the places where materials are concentrated. Any fire, no matter what the cause is, are results of the burning of a large
number of flammable and combustible materials. Therefore, to prevent fire, it is necessary to effectively control flammable
and combustible materials. And in order to do so, we must understand and study the burning and exploding properties of
these materials. Safety measures should also be adopted to ensure the safety in the storage of dangerous chemicals and
materials.

1.2. Risks of dangerous chemical warehouses

1.2.1. Geographical environment is complex, accidental effects are serious

At the same time, warehousing enterprises, adjacent to the risks of many sources, need high and difficult dealing
processes. Once toxic, hazardous chemicals are released, leakage and proliferation will endanger the safety of personnel in
the whole area. The smoke gas toxicity produced by combustion is big. When anti-explosion resistance ability of a building
is poor, it is also prone to collapse. The storage structures of hazardous chemicals storage enterprises[5-6] are complex, and
such companies can be divided into four main functional regions. As is shown in Figure 1. Zone I includes inspection bridge,
heavy box area, packing area. Zone II includes comprehensive office building, dangerous chemicals warehouse. Zone III is
used as the storage area, transfer depot, dangerous goods warehouse and empty container area. Zone IV, used as office
buildings, is piled up with a large number of tank and ordinary containers in the yard.

Fig.1 Structural site area of hazardous chemicals warehouse enterprise

1.2.2 Dangerous chemicals are various, and the risk of disaster is great
All kinds of organic and inorganic dangerous chemicals explode violently after burning, and flammable liquid can
produce flowing fire. Flowing fire spreads rapidly and threatens the surrounding areas of a warehouse. For example, a large
amount of hazardous chemicals in a warehouse enterprise, which are stored in a mixture[7-9], may interact with each other
at any time and occur a series of chain reactions. Especially for a large number of dangerous chemicals storing in container,
 988 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995
Cong ZHANG/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

once in case of spontaneous combustion or exposure to an open flame, when encountering impact or friction, contacting
with water or acid, will break down to release heat and ignite the surrounding materials under high temperature and will
produce toxic gases, such as hydrogen cyanide, which may cause all kinds of potential dangers.
1.2.3 Disaster is complex and changeable, and the disposal process is difficult
A large number of chemical explosions in dangerous chemicals warehouse, may produce a lot of smoke, gas, sewage,
drainage and flowing fire, and cause many explosions, leading to complex and changeable disaster situation, and dangerous
chemicals are of various types and in large quantities. Many kinds of flammable and explosive dangerous goods scattered
on the spot, as well as many uncertain risk factors, smoke and toxic substances, etc., will threaten personnels on the scene
and pose great challenges to fire fighting and rescue work. And the pollutants of explosion will reach surrounding areas with
water and air, resulting in secondary disasters, causing environmental pollution.

2. Fire safety analysis based on fire and explosion model of dangerous chemicals

2.1. Basic properties of common dangerous chemicals

In case of spontaneous combustion or combustion of the substances in dangerous chemical warehouse, the pressure will
rise and will cause the container to explode; if package fails, fire will spread to surrounding combustible materials. Once
different types of chemicals contact with each other, it may appear oxidation reactions, neutralization reactions, replacement
reactions, etc. And some dangerous products tend to combust spontaneously, causing severe combustion and explosions
[10-12] in the event of impact or friction. These chemicals of major risk include the following categories:
(1) Oxidizer: Nitrates, such oxidizers contain high valence N5+, making electrons N3+ (NO), such as potassium nitrate,
sodium nitrate, lithium nitrate, etc..
(2) Chlorine containing oxacid and its salts: the molecules of this kind of oxidant contain high valence chlorine (Cl+, Cl3+,
Cl5+, Cl7+) are easy to obtain electron and turn into low valence chloride (C10+, Cl-), such as perchloric acid, potassium
chlorate, low calcium chlorate, etc..

2.2. Calculation of shock wave overpressure

Most fire and explosions will cause pressure vessels to explode due to overpressure by mixed gases. The TNT equivalent
method applies to strong vapor cloud explosion. The following is a case in point of potassium nitrate which produces large
explosion energy, oxidation, and severe destruction in fires and explosions [13-15]. TNT equivalent method is used to
calculate the mixing gas after explosion, and then the vapor cloud explosion shock wave overpressure is formed.
This article assumes that the mass of potassium nitrate is 1046 tons, assuming that the explosion would completely
change into steam. At the same time, assuming that the volume of the explosion source at the time of explosion is negligible
and that the energy is released instantaneously when the explosion occurs. TNT equivalent calculation can be seen in
Equation (1).:

WTNT    W f  Q f / QTNT (1)

where WTNT is the TNT equivalent of vapor cloud, kg. W f is the total mass of fuel in the steam cloud, kg.  is the vapor
cloud equivalent coefficient, 0.04. Q f is the heat of combustion of steam, J/kg. QTNT is the explosion heat of TNT,
4.52MJ/kg.
The molecular weight of potassium nitrate is 101, the amount of potassium nitrate material is 990mol/kg. The burning
heat of potassium nitrate is 28732.77kJ/kg. The total mass of potassium nitrate in the steam cloud is 265968.83kg.
When explosion occurs on the ground, the total energy will be 1.8 times because of reflection, so the mass of potassium
nitrate on the ground is converted into 478743.89kg.

2.3. Range of shock wave damage

Shock wave overpressure can cause damage to surrounding personnel and buildings in varying degrees. When 1000kg
TNT explodes in the air, the shock wave overpressure and grades of danger are classified as is shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995 989
Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Table 1 Shock wave overpressure of 1000 kg TNT during explosion in the air

R0 (m) △p (MPa) R0 (m) △p (MPa)

14 0.330 55 0.020 5
16 0.235 60 0.018 0
18 0.170 65 0.016 0
20 0.126 70 0.014 3
25 0.079 75 0.013 0
30 0.057 90 0.010 0
35 0.043 109 0.007 5
40 0.033 0 144 0.005 0
45 0.027 0 166 0.004 0
50 0.023 5 201 0.003 0

Table 2. Classification of grades of danger

Severity of danger Degree of injury to humans Overpressure △p (MPa)

Ⅰ Fatal Cause (most) people to deaths >0.10
Ⅱ Severe Damage people’s internal organs seriously 0.05-0.10
Ⅲ Dangerous Injure people’s hearing organ or result in a fracture 0.03-0.05
Ⅳ Negligible Body is slightly damaged or harmless <0.03

The overpressure of shock wave can be obtained, using Equation (2) and Equation (3) :

R
ze  1/3
(2)
mTNT

E
mTNT  (3)
QTNT ´

where mTNT is TNT equivalent weight on the ground, kgTNT; R is the distance from explosion spot, m; E is the
explosive energy, KJ; QTNT ´ is the explosive equivalent energy of TNT, 4686KJ/kg.
According to the cube root scaling laws and Baker's distance criterion of TNT equivalent ratio, which can be seen in
Equation (4) :

R 3 mTNT
    p  p0 (4)
R0 mTNT0

where R0 is the distance between the explosion spot and the center of explosion in experimental explosion, m; mTNT0 is the
weight of TNT in experimental explosion, kgTNT; p is explosion overpressure during actual explosion, kPa; p0 is the
explosion overpressure at the location of explosion during a test.  is the dimensionless similarity ratio of actual explosion
to experimental explosion.
The explosive energy is shown in Equation (5) :

E  mTNT  QTNT (5)

 Cong ZHANG/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
990 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995

where mTNT is 478743.89kg, by substituting it into the formula, the explosive energy is 2.243  109 J.
Therefore, Equation (4) can be written in form of Equation (6):

3
R mTNT
    p  p0 (6)
22.766 1000

(1) When the shock wave peak overpressure is p <0.03MPa, corresponding to R0 >42.5m, then the human body will be
slightly damaged. According to Equation (6), the explosion damage radius of potassium nitrate can be calculated, and the
explosion damage radius is R >332.473m.
(2) When the shock wave peak overpressure is p =0.03—0.05MPa, corresponding to R0 =32.5m—42.5m. At this time,
the stuff is dangerous, and the explosion damage radius of potassium nitrate calculated is R =254.244m—332.473m.
(3) When the shock wave peak overpressure is p =0.05—0.10MPa , corresponding to R0 =22.77m—32.5m. At this time,
the stuff will be seriously injured, and the explosion damage radius of potassium nitrate calculated is R =178.127m—
254.244m.
(4) When the shock wave peak overpressure is p >0.10MPa , corresponding to R0 < 22.77m. At this time, the stuff are
fatal, and the explosion damage radius of potassium nitrate calculated is R <178.127m.
The explosion damage radius is shown in Figure 2, where r1 is 178.127m, r2 is 254.244m, r3 is 332.473m.

Fig. 2 Explosion damage radius of potassium nitrate

When exploding on the ground, the TNT equivalent of potassium nitrate is 478743.89 kg. The explosive energy is 243 
109J. The minor damage radius is R >332.473m, the dangerous radius is R =254.244m—332.473m, and the serious injury
radius is R =178.127m—254.244m, the lethal radius is R <178.127m.
Through the above calculation, the inflammable and explosive substances stored in the warehouse of dangerous
chemicals[16-17] can be quantitatively analyzed and calculated. Energy of burning and explosion accidents can be
calculated, the storage amount of material can be controlled, and the safety range of security can be restricted when fire and
explosions occur.

3. Fire risk assessment of dangerous chemical warehouses

3.1. Establishment of the evaluation index system

Table 3 Fire risk assessment index system of dangerous chemical warehouses

The first level of criterion layer
Inherent risk degree of hazard sources A1
The second level of criterion layer The scheme layer
Inherent risk of hazardous substances B1 Fire explosion hazard C1
Toxicity degree C2
Inherent risk of hazard source enterprises B2 Varieties of dangerous goods C3
Quantity of dangerous goods C4
Surrounding hazard sources C5
 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995 991
Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Risk offset ability of hazard source A2
Hazardous consequence degree of hazard source
A3
Risk of management system on hazardous source B3
Risk of management technology of hazardous sources
B4
Hazardous risk at the site of hazard source B5
Social harm and risk of hazard source B6
Perfection level of emergency plans C6
Quality of full-time security personnel C7
Safety management system C8
Safety science and technology investment
C9
Safety of processing route C10
Property quality at the site C11
Number of on-site personnel C12
Number of people around C13
Number of surrounding properties C14

The establishment of fire risk assessment index of dangerous chemical warehouses is mainly based on the two aspects of
fire and can be considered as follows: First, according to the risk sources of fire and explosion, the layout of environment
and the characteristics of the technological production process[18-19], related preventive measures can be carried out for the
storage enterprises; Second, confirming the fire controlling measures be adopted after the fire and effective disposal of the
disaster be carried out, ensuring the development of fire emergency rescue work and extinguishing the fire. Taking into
account the properties and characteristics of the actual use of such sites [20-22], an evaluation index standard hierarchy and
an evaluation system are established, as is shown in Table 3.

3.2. Index weight calculation

Yaahp V10.3 is used to evaluate the index of fire and explosion accidents, and the weight of each index is determined. To
ensure the reliability and scientific nature of data sources, 10 experts were invited to evaluate conditions of the dangerous
chemical warehouse, including 5 staffs from the local Fire Brigade, as well as 5 staffs from the Bureau of Safety production
supervision and Administration of the local government.
First of all, scoring indicators of the scheme level (Number 1 to Number 9) which corresponding to the second level of
criterion layer in each group, related to the proportion of role[23-24]. In accordance with the significance degree, equally
important, slightly important, more important, very important, we divide it into four grades, and construct pairwise
comparison matrices. Then we can obtain consistency index and consistency ratio , referring to Equation (7) and (8) :

max  n
C.I  (7)
n 1

C.R  C.I (8)

R.I

where C.I is consistency index; max is maximum eigenvalue; R.I is mean random consistency index; C.R is consistency
ratio. Validation is done by consistency checking; on the contrary, it cannot pass the test. The weight coefficient of each
weight index is obtained. At the same time, the total weight coefficient of each index to the total target is obtained. Taking
dangerous chemicals warehouse in an industrial district as an example. Comparison matrix of the first level of criterion
layer is shown in Table 4(a).

Table 4 (a) Comparison matrix of the first level of criterion layer by expert scoring

Fire risk Consistency ratio of comparison matrix: 00909 Total target weight: 1.0000
Fire risk Inherent risk degree of hazard Risk offset ability of Hazardous consequence degree of Wi
sources A1 hazard source A2 hazard source A3
Inherent risk degree of hazard sources 1.0000 1.3723 1.9347 0.4219
A1
Risk offset ability of hazard source 0.7287 1.0000 3.5338 0.4176
A2
Hazardous consequence degree of 0.5169 0.2830 1.0000 0.1605
hazard source A3
 992 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995
Cong ZHANG/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

max = 3.094 6, C.I = 0.047 3, C.R = 0.0909< 0.1，it passed the consistency test.
Comparison matrix of the second level of criterion layer is shown in Table 4(b). We can also know target weight of A1 ,
the first level of the criterion layer.

Table 4(b) Comparison matrix of the second level of criterion layer by expert scoring

Inherent risk degree of hazard sources A1 Consistency ratio of comparison matrix：0.0000； Total target amount weight W(1)： 0.4219
Inherent risk degree of hazard sources A1 Inherent risk of hazardous substances B1 Inherent risk of hazard source enterprises B2 Wi
Inherent risk of hazardous substances B1 1.0000 2.0000 0.6667

Inherent risk of hazard source enterprises 0.5000 1.0000 0.3333

B2

max =2.0000, C.I =0.0000, C.R = 0.0000<0.1，it passed the consistency test. Total weight of the first level of criterion
layer W (A1) is 0.421 9. A2 and A3 follow the same procedure as A1 , and W (A2) is 0.417 6， W (A3) is 0.160 5.
Comparison matrix of the scheme level by expert scoring is shown in Table 5. We can also know target weight of B1 ,
the second level of the criterion layer.
Table 5 Comparison matrix of the scheme level by expert scoring

Inherent risk of hazardous substances B1 Consistency ratio of comparison matrix：0.0000；Total target amount weight：0.2812
Inherent risk of hazardous substances B1 Fire explosion hazard C1 Toxicity degree C2 Wi
Fire explosion hazard C1 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000
Toxicity degree C2 1.0000 1.0000 0.5000

max = 2.0000, C.I = 0.0000, C.R = 0.0000<0.1，passed the consistency test. Total weight of the second level of criterion
layer W (B1) is 0.281 2. B2 to B6 follow the same procedure as B1 , and W (B2) is 0.140 6， W (B3) is 0.313 2, W (B4) is 0.104
4, W (B5) is 0.128 4, W (B6) is 0.032 1.
The weight coefficients of the scheme layer to the total target, W (Ci) ( i =1,2…,14) are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 The weight coefficients of each index of the scheme layer to the total target

Final result
Alternative Wi
Fire explosion hazard C1 0.1406
Toxicity degree C2 0.1406
Varieties of dangerous goods C3 0.0449
Quantity of dangerous goods C4 0.0785
Surrounding hazard sources C5 0.0172
Perfection level of emergency plans C6 0.1690
Quality of full-time security personnel C7 0.0930
Safety management system C8 0.0512
Safety science and technology investment C9 0.0348
Safety of processing route C10 0.0696
Property quality at the site C11 0.0428
Number of on-site personnel C12 0.0856
Number of people around C13 0.0214
Number of surrounding properties C14 0.0107

Ranking of the weight coefficients of each index of the scheme layer to the total target is as follows:
Perfection level of emergency plans > Fire explosion hazard= Toxicity degree > Quality of full-time security personnel >
Number of on-site personnel > Quantity of dangerous goods > Safety of processing route > Safety management system >
 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995 993
Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Varieties of dangerous goods > Property quality at the site > Safety science and technology investment > Number of people
around > Surrounding hazard sources > Number of surrounding properties, and the latter three items account for minor
weight. Therefore, the main influencing factors of fire risk in dangerous chemical warehouse buildings are perfection level
of emergency plans, fire explosion hazard, toxicity degree, quality of full-time security personnel, number of on-site
personnel, quantity of dangerous goods, safety of processing route, etc.

3.3. Safety scoring table designation and evaluating grade division

3.3.1 Safety scoring table

Determine the total weight of factors in evaluation index, according to the fire safety management regulations in this site
and fire hazard assessment standards. The evaluation index of the scheme layer is graded, and a safety scoring table is
worked out, and the total weight of the index is multiplied by scoring value. In this paper, we take a dangerous chemicals
warehouse as an example. Each score in the safety score sheet is marked by 10 fire experts from the fire brigade in the
district of hazardous chemical warehouse, according to the importance of each aspect respectively. And then the average
score is listed as security assessment mark, as is shown in Table 7. The final index score is also given in it.
In order to ensure the reliability and accuracy of each score, in this process, we invited 10 experts in the survey. The
experts carried out investigation on the warehouse of dangerous chemicals respectively. And according to the opinions
feedback from experts, the consistent items are given, and the score of each item is obtained. Finally, the average score of
10 marks is calculated for each item.

Table 7 Safety scoring table for assessment of hazardous chemical warehouses

Serial number Evaluation index Security assessment mark Weight coefficiency index Final index score
1 Fire explosion hazard C1 82 0.1406 11.5292
2 Toxicity degree C2 70 0.1406 9.842
3 Varieties of dangerous goods C3 78 0.0449 3.5022
4 Quantity of dangerous goods C4 80 0.0785 6.28
5 Surrounding hazard sources C5 72 0.0172 1.2384
6 Perfection level of emergency plans C6 40 0.1690 6.76
7 Quality of full-time security personnel C7 60 0.0930 5.58
8 Safety management system C8 10 0.0512 0.512
9 Safety science and technology investment C9 30 0.0348 1.044
10 Safety of processing route C10 45 0.0696 3.132
11 Property quality at the site C11 70 0.0428 2.996
12 Number of on-site personnel C12 60 0.0856 5.136
13 Number of people around C13 76 0.0214 1.6264
14 Number of surrounding properties C14 79 0.0107 0.8453
Total 60.0235

3.3.2 Evaluation grade division

The score of system safety evaluation can be expressed in Equation (9) :

VS   PEI  WEI (9)

where VS is the score of system safety evaluation; PEI is the score of evaluation index EI ; WEI is the total weight of
evaluation index EI . The evaluation indexes are divided into five grades in total. Fire hazard level, classification and
illustration are shown in Table 8.
 994 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995
Cong ZHANG/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Table 8 Fire hazard level classification and illustration

Fire Levels of system Fire hazard illustration

hazard security classification
level
Better [90,100] Fire risk is relatively small
Good [75,90] Fire risk is relatively small
Medium [60,75] Fire risk is ordinary in general, as long as a certain link
goes wrong, it can lead to a fire.
Bad [45,60] Fire risk is high, should take measures as soon as
possible
Worse [0,45] Fire risk is great, fire safety management should be
carried out at certain dangerous point, and business
should be stopped for rectify if necessary

Taking the dangerous chemical warehouse in this article for an example, the final calculation of safety evaluation system
score is 60.0235, compared with the control index. It is known that the fire safety level of this warehouse is bad, and fire
safety measures should be taken as soon as possible, and unsafe factors[25-27] should be eliminated in time.

4. Conclusion

4.1. Assessment results

From the above evaluation results of analytic hierarchy process, we can draw the following conclusions:
(1) This warehouse is a rather large and complicated place, and there are many fire hazards in the facilities and management.
The fire safety situation is poor, and it is rated as a poor fire safety place, which is corresponded with actual situation.
Thus, this fire safety evaluation method is feasible.
(2) In a given area, specific safety grade score over an interval can be set up to evaluate the local hazardous chemical
warehouse. And on this basis, emphasized supervision is implemented. This evaluation method is of great practical
significance.

4.2. Corrective actions and suggestions

According to the scoring results of analytic hierarchy process, the main influencing factors of fire risk of dangerous
chemical warehouses are perfection level of emergency plans, fire explosion hazard, toxicity degree, quality of full-time
security personnel, number of on-site personnel, quantity of dangerous chemicals, safety of processing route. Therefore, the
following management of the dangerous chemical warehouse is put forward：
(1) In order to reduce fire risks, the following measures should be done:
①In order to reduce fire and explosion risk, warehouse location should be reasonable. Reasonable transportation routes
for hazardous chemicals shall be established. As for large and medium-sized warehouses with large quantities of
dangerous chemicals, they should be constructed independently in safety zones outside towns.
②Storage rooms of dangerous chemicals should be properly ventilated to avoid exposure and humidity. For example,
thickening wall thickness. Air inlet holes should be arranged at the top and corner of the warehouse.
③Between warehouse storing all kinds of chemical dangerous goods and other buildings, as well as between walls of
warehouses, it should use firewalls of fire-resistant limit. Adequate fire separation distance should be maintained. Any
dangerous goods and cartons and other flammable substances should be cleared off within fire separation distance.
(2) In order to control the quantity of dangerous goods, we should put an end to improper storage or alteration of its
functions. Illegal storage or mixed and high stacking of dangerous goods should be banned. Different types of
dangerous goods shall not be mixed up. The distance between them shall be sufficient and ultra-high stacking violation
phenomenon should be prohibited. Arbitrarily loading and unloading, dumping, moving locations of containers and
storage should be stopped.
(3) In order to improve the quality of full-time security staff, it is necessary to strengthen the safety education of enterprise
employees. And the technical level of production clerks, stevedores and transportation officers should meet the related
requirements. Enterprises should strengthen fire safety inspections and the implementation of inspection censorship.
Ensure that personnel are on the job and strengthen fire safety management, put inspection registration on records, and
 Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 211 (2018) 986–995 995
Cong ZHANG / Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

find out and eliminate potential dangers in time. Special person should be assigned on the spot to supervise and guard
against sudden dangerous situations, and avoid the deficiency and oversight of management. Dangerous chemical
stacks and cargo should be managed consolidatedly. We should avoid barbarous stevedoring or dumping, leakage and
other dangerous behaviors during packing and transporting. Hazardous chemicals should be removed in time and alter
excessive storage of dangerous chemical goods.
(4) Formulate perfect emergency plans. Organize staff evacuation drills regularly, strengthen safety awareness, high
attention should be paid to the maintenance and repairment of facilities and equipment, and the safety management
personnel should take their responsibilities seriously.

References
[1] Bakshi, N., Gans, N., 2010. Securing the containerized supply chain: analysis of government incentives for private investment. Manage. Sci. 56, p.
219–233.
[2] Xue, L., Villalobos, R., 2012. A multi-objective optimization primary planning model for POE (Port-of-Entry) inspection. J. Transport. Secur. 5, p.
217–237.
[3] Cho, D., Lee, Y., Ahn, S., Hwang, M., 2012. A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 62,
p. 801–818.
[4] Elmoselhy, S., 2014. Hybrid lean–agile manufacturing system technical facet, in automotive sector. J. Manuf. Syst. 32, p. 598–619.
[5] Beresford, A.K.C., Pettit, S.J., Wu, Q., Williams, S., 2012. A study of dry port development in China. Marit. Econ. Logist. 14, p. 73–98.
[6] Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E., Moder, M., 2012. Supply risk management: model development and empirical analysis. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manage. 42, p. 60–82.
[7] Bernechea, E.J., Arnaldos-Viger, J., 2013. Design optimization of hazardous substance storage facilities to minimize project risk. Saf. Sci. 51, p. 49–62.
[8] Clott, C., Hartman, B.C., 2016. Supply chain integration, landside operations and port accessibility in metropolitan Chicago. J. Transp. Geogr. 51, p.
130–139.
[9] Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., Darbra, R.M., 2016. Identification of Occupational Health, Safety, Security (OHSS)
and Environmental Performance Indicators in port areas. Saf. Sci. 85, p. 266–275.
[10] Johansson, L., 2008. Supply Chain Security Initiatives: A Trade Facilitation Perspective. Kommerskollegium, The National Board of Trade, Sweden.
[11] Assadipour, G., Ke, G.Y., Verma, M., 2015. Planning and managing intermodal transportation of hazardous materials with capacity selection and
congestion. Transp. Res. Part E 76, p. 45–57.
[12] Agwu, M.O., 2012. Total safety management: a strategy for improving organisational performance in selected construction companies in Nigeria. Int.
J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 3, p. 210–217.
[13] Wu Jianqiang, Zhang Lei, Zhu Guoqing, 2011. “Performance-based Evaluation on the Logistics Warehouse” Procedia Engineering-Proceedings of the
5th Conference on Performance-based Fire and Fire Protection Engineering, pp. 522-528.
[14] Zhang Jing, 2012. Fire Safety Assessment on National Cotton Logistics Warehouse, Journal of Fire Protection Technique and Production Information
8, p. 81-84.
[15] Agwu, M.O., 2012. Total safety management: a strategy for improving organisational performance in selected construction companies in Nigeria. Int.
J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 3, p. 210–217.
[16] Guo, X., Huang, S.Y., 2012. Dynamic space and time partitioning for yard crane workload management in container terminals. Transp. Sci. 46, p.134–
148.
[17] Harik, R., El-Hachem, W., Medini, K., Bernard, A., 2005. Towards a holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing
companies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, p. 4117–4139.
[18] He, J., Huang, Y., Yan, W., Wang, S., 2015. Integrated internal truck, yard crane and quay crane scheduling in a container terminal considering energy
consumption. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, p. 2464–2487.
[19] Tappura, S., Sievänen, M., Heikkilä, J., Jussila, A., Nenonen, N., 2015. A management accounting perspective on safety. Saf. Sci. 71, p. 151–159.
[20] Li, Y., Ping, H., Ma, Z.-H., Pan, L.-G., 2014. Statistical analysis of sudden chemical leakage accidents reported in China between 2006 and 2011.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, p. 5547–5553.
[21] Lu, C., Yang, C., 2010. Safety leadership and safety behavior in container terminal operations. Saf. Sci. 48, p. 123–134.
[22] Portugal, L.S., Morgado, A.V., Júnior, O.L., 2011. Location of cargo terminals in metropolitan areas of developing countries: the Brazilian case. J.
Transp. Geogr. 19, p. 900–910.
[23] Tramarico, C.L., Salomon, V.A.P., Marins, F.A.S., 2015. Analytic hierarchy process and supply chain management: a bibliometric study. Proc.
Comput. Sci. 55, p. 441–450.
[24] Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 169, p. 1–29.
[25] Tappura, S., Sievänen, M., Heikkilä, J., Jussila, A., Nenonen, N., 2015. A management accounting perspective on safety. Saf. Sci. 71, p. 151–159.
[26] Gambardella, L.M., Mastrolilli, M., Rizzoli, A.E., Zaffalon, M., 2001. An optimization methodology for intermodal terminal management. J. Intell.
Manuf. 12, p. 521–534.
[27] Giner-Santonja, G., Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Niclós-Ferragut, J., 2012. The application of the analytic network process to the assessment of best
available techniques. J. Clean. Prod. 25, p. 86–95.