Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences

Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences

Determining the safe distance of city gas station (CGS) and town boarder station (TBS) pressure reduction stations using PHAST software

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
Mohammad Shakerkhatibi* 1
Mohammad Adib 2
Hadi Ahmadi Vafa 3
Yousef Mohammadian 4
Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh 5
1 Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Golgasht St. Attar e Neishabouri St
2 Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Science, Tabriz, Iran
3 Department of Health, Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Science, Tabriz, Iran
4 Department of Occupational Health, School of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
5 Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Health Faculty, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
10.22118/jjhs.2026.547059.1020
Abstract
Background and Objective: The safety of distribution networks at gas pressure reduction stations has become increasingly important as a critical aspect in gas industry. This study aimed to determine the safe distances around City Gas Stations (CGS) and Town Border Stations (TBS) in Tabriz.
Methods: Station data were collected over the course of one year. Additional information was obtained through interviews and correspondence with officials from the local Gas Company. To model the consequences and determine the safety zones (fire zone, restricted area, and impacted area), the Total GS EP SAF 253 standard and PHAST software (version 8.22) were utilized.

Findings: Based on the findings, the safe distances are 81 m for the fire zone, 529 m for the restricted zone, and 649 m for the impacted zone. At TBS stations, these distances were determined to be 24, 282, and 338 m, respectively. The results indicate that adhering to these distances, particularly during the design phase and implementation of the defined zones in accordance with the Total GS 253 standard, plays a significant role in mitigating the consequences of potential accidents. However, the results also show that the safety zones were not properly observed at most stations.
Conclusion: The TBS station was identified as requiring special safety attention owing to its high-traffic location. Overlapping hazard effects were observed in the CGS stations due to the close proximity of the pressure reduction units. Furthermore, the boundaries of the restricted zone were not adequately considered during the design of most stations.

Keywords: Safety zone, Pressure reduction station, CGS, TBS, PHAST
Keywords
Safety zone
Pressure reduction station
CGS
TBS
PHAST
1.       Esfandian H, Goodarzian Urimi M, Shokoohi Rad A. Risk assessment of gasoline storage unit of National Iranian Oil Product Distribution Company using PHAST software. Int J Eng. 2021;34(4):763–8.https://doi:10.5829/ije.2021.34.04a.02
2.       Fatemi F, Ardalan A, Mansouri N, Aguirre B, Mohammadfam I. Industrial chemical accidents: a growing health hazard in the Islamic Republic of Iran. East Mediterr Health J. 2019;25(1):5–11. https://doi.org/ 10.26719/2019.25.1.5[PMID]
3.       Hadi Ahmadi V. Gas pipelines importance, accidents and hazards: a literature review study. Int J Occup Hyg. 2023;14(2).
4.       Askaripoor T, Kazemi E, Aghaei H, Marzban M. Evaluating and comparison of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process in ranking and quantitative safety risk analysis (case study: a combined cycle power plant). Saf Promot Inj Prev (Tehran). 2015;3(3):169–74.
5.       Naemnezhad A, Isari AA, Khayer E, Esfandiari Birak Olya M. Consequence assessment of separator explosion for an oil production platform in South of Iran with PHAST Software. Model Earth Syst Environ. 2017;3(1):1–12.https://doi:10.1007/s40808-017-0297-9
6.       Dadashzadeh M, Khan F, Hawboldt K, Amyotte P. An integrated approach for fire and explosion consequence modelling. Fire Saf J. 2013;61:324–37.http://doi:10.1016/ j.firesaf.2013.09.015
7.       Malviya RK, Rushaid M. Consequence analysis of LPG storage tank. Mater Today Proc. 2018;5(2):4359–67.https://doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.12.003
8.       Mousavi J, Parvini M. Analyzing effective factors on leakage-induced hydrogen fires. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2016;40:29–42.https://doi:10.1016/ j.jlp.2015.12.002
9.       Jafari MJ, Mohammadfam I, Zarei E. Analysis and simulation of severe accidents in a steam methane reforming plant. Int J Occup Hyg. 2014;6(3):120–30.
10.   Min LQ, Hong L, Lian S, editors. Study on safe distance and strength check of natural gas flaring. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2019; IOP Publishing.https://doi:10.1088/1755-1315/267/6/062049
11.   Yang R, Gai K, Yang F, Zhang G, Sun N, editors. Simulation of pressure tank leakage based on PHAST. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2019; IOP Publishing.https://doi:10.1088/1757-899X/592/1/012090
12.   Bahmani R, Pouyakyan M, Khodakarim S, Bidel H, Salehi A. Risk assessment and consequence analysis of fire and explosion in a vinyl chloride monomer tank by PHAST. J Saf Promot Inj Prev. 2021;8(4):208–18.
13.   Bagheri M, Badri N, Rashtchian D, Eghbalian H. Determination of safe distance for sour gas pipelines based on quantitative risk assessment. Iran J Chem Chem Eng. 2013;32(2):57–71.
14.   Jahedshahraki H, Esfandiari N. Simulation the fire consequence for a gas pipeline using PHAST software. Iran Chem Eng J. 2022;20(119):22–30.https://doi: 10.22034/ijche.2021.276516.1095
15.   Özay ME, Güzel P, Can E. Consequence modelling and analysis of methane explosions: a preliminary study on biogas stations. J Adv Res Nat Appl Sci. 2021;7(1):132–44.https://doi:10.28979/jarnas.890649
16.   Torfi Alivi A, Shahraki F, Sardashti Birjandi MR, Khalilipour MM. Consequences modeling and determining of safe distance in the natural gas pressure reduction station using PHAST software (Case study: Borumi station in Ahvaz). Occup Med Q J. 2023;15(1):37–57.https://doi:10.18502/tkj.v15i1.12978
17.   Chen Y, editor. Consequence simulation and risk assessment model of liquid ammonia leakage accident based on PHAST software. In: Proc 2020 Int Conf Adv Ambient Comput Intell (ICAACI). 2020. IEEE.
18.   Rashidi S, Varshosaz K. Modeling and evaluation of the environmental consequences of fire in atmospheric storage tanks using PHAST software. Adv Environ Technol. 2023;9(2):153–64.https://doi:10.22104/aet.2023.6024.1669
19.   Mirzakhani H, Zarvanshani V, Ahmadi S. The influence of climate change on the modeling of fire and explosion risk consequences in a city gas station (CGS). J Health Field. 2020.
20.   Panahi S, Karimi A, Pourbabaki R. Consequence modeling and analysis of explosion and fire hazards caused by methane emissions in a refinery in cold and hot seasons. 2020.https://doi:10.22037/jhf.v7i4.25456