Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FREQUENCIES
2009
for drawing up a
SAFETY REPORT
05/05/2009
Flemish Government
LNE Department
Environment, Nature and Energy Policy Unit
Safety Reporting Division
HANDBOOK FAILURE
FREQUENCIES
2009
for drawing up a
SAFETY REPORT
05/05/2009
Flemish Government
LNE Department
Environment, Nature and Energy Policy Unit
Safety Reporting Division
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
12
13
14
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
28
31
05/05/2009
05/05/2009
Preface
In 1994 a directive entitled Handboek Kanscijfers [HBKC1994] was issued. This
directive described the failure frequencies for the different installation parts to be
used by safety reporting experts when drawing up safety reports.
In 2002 the directive Actualisatie van de AMINAL-richtlijn voor het gebruik van
faalkansen bij het opstellen van veiligheidsrapporten was published. This directive
only listed the new failure frequencies for a limited number of installation parts.
For the failure frequencies which were maintained reference was made to the
respective remaining chapters of Handboek Kanscijfers.
In 2004 the 1994 Handboek Kanscijfers and the 2002 directive were joined into one
document, namely the coordinated version Handboek Kanscijfers 2004
[HBKC2004].
In 2007 the TWOL project Actualisering van de faalkansen in de risicoberekeningen
van Sevesobedrijven [SGS] was delivered. The purpose of this project was to obtain
more up-to-date failure frequencies for several installation parts. Based on the end
report of the TWOL project and after consultation with the accredited safety
reporting experts and the Seveso establishments, this Handbook on Failure
Frequencies 2009 was drawn up.
All background information on the failure frequencies listed here can be found in
the accompanying document with background information [AI2009].
05/05/2009
05/05/2009
Chapter 1:
Introduction
In the following chapters the types of failure and the generic failure frequencies per
installation (part) within an establishment will be discussed. In the quantitative risk
analysis all these types of failure must be taken into account and the given generic failure
frequencies must be used. The failure frequencies given in this handbook have priority
over all other failure frequencies available in the literature. If other installations than
those included here should turn out to be relevant to external safety, these should be
included in the quantitative risk analysis with a well-founded failure frequency.
Frequently used symbols
deq
Dmax
D10
DL, max
Instantaneous failure
Instantaneous failure of a tank is modelled in two ways, namely as a rupture and as a
complete outflow in 10 minutes. The frequency for instantaneous failure is distributed
equally over both release scenarios.
If one of the leaks to be modelled gives rise to an outflow of the entire content in 10
minutes or less, the type of failure complete outflow in 10 minutes should not be
included in the risk assessment, but the failure frequency for this type of failure should be
added to the failure frequency for the type of failure rupture. Consequently, the total
failure frequency for instantaneous failure will always be applied, either distributed over
the types of failure complete outflow in 10 minutes and rupture, or only under the type
of failure rupture.
05/05/2009
Leakage
The handbook provides for three types of leakage, namely large leak, medium leak and
small leak. The way in which these types of leakage are considered in the risk assessment
depends on the maximum leak diameter.
To determine the maximum leak diameter the minimum of the maximum connection
diameter and the diameter giving rise to an outflow in 10 minutes is taken (DL, max = min
(Dmax, D10)).
If the maximum leak diameter is smaller than or equal to 10 mm, only the type of failure
small leak is taken into account in the risk assessment, with a failure frequency equal to
the sum of the failure frequencies for the types of failure large leak, medium leak and
small leak. The equivalent leak diameter is equated with 10 mm.
If the maximum leak diameter is situated in the interval of the medium leak (1050 mm),
the type of failure large leak should not be taken into consideration in the risk
assessment, but the failure frequency of the type of failure large leak should be added to
that of the type of failure medium leak. The equivalent leak diameter for the type of
failure medium leak' is equated with the maximum leak diameter.
The type of failure small leak is still considered separately in the risk assessment, with
its own failure frequency and an equivalent leak diameter of 10 mm.
If the maximum leak diameter is bigger than or equal to 50 mm, the types of failure large
leak, medium leak and small leak are all taken into account in the risk assessment
separately, each with its own failure frequency.
The equivalent leak diameter for the type of failure large leak' is equated with the
maximum leak diameter.
The equivalent leak diameter for the type of failure medium leak is equated with 25 mm.
The equivalent leak diameter for the type of failure small leak is equated with 10 mm.
05/05/2009
installation part in question. To each (partial) cause a relative contribution is linked. For
each (partial) cause a safety measure or a package of safety measures is proposed which
can lead to a reduction in the relative contribution of this (partial) cause. A safety
measure can obviously lead to a reduction in the relative contribution of several (partial)
causes.
For the assignment of the reduction factors the following general rules apply:
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Situation
Organisational or policy-based safety measure
Technical safety measure
Technical safety measure, implemented redundantly and monitored
via a safety circuit which is independent from the process computer
Safety measure which excludes a partial cause, or
partial cause which is not applicable
Reduction factor
0.10
0.05
0.01
0
05/05/2009
11
Chapter 2:
Pressure tanks
In Table 1 the generic failure frequencies are given for leaks and instantaneous releases in
pressure tanks. This table applies to all pressurised installation parts, with the exception
of those mentioned elsewhere in the handbook. This table should be read together with
the explanation in paragraph 1.1.
Table 1: Failure frequencies [/tank year] for pressure tanks
Type of failure
Small leak
0.1 < d 10 mm
deq = 10 mm
Medium leak
10 < d 50 mm
deq = 25 mm
Large leak
50 < d Dmax
deq = DL, max
1.2 10-5
1.2 10-4
1.1 10-6
1.1 10-5
1.1 10-6
1.1 10-5
3.2 10-7
1.0 10-7
3.2 10-6
Rupture
3.2 10-7
1.0 10-7
3.2 10-6
The installation part pressure tank consists of the vessel including the manhole,
instrumentation connections and pipe connections up to the first flange. Leaks in the
corresponding pipe system are not included here.
If the pipe connection up to the first flange is longer than 10 m, the pipe connection must
be regarded as a separate pipe part.
Definitions
Mobile pressure tank
Fixed pressure tank
12
05/05/2009
Chapter 3:
As generic failure frequencies the figures mentioned in Table 2 apply. These failure
frequencies apply to all mobile pressure containers up to 1,000 litres (gas cylinders and
pressure vessels).
Type of failure
Failure frequency
Gas cylinder [/cylinder.year]
Leak
deq = Dmax
1.1 10-5
Rupture
1.1 10-6
1.1 10-6
Definitions
Pressure container
Pressure vessel
Gas cylinder
05/05/2009
13
Chapter 4:
Atmospheric tanks
In Table 3 the generic failure frequencies are given for leaks and instantaneous releases in
atmospheric tanks. For storage tanks the decision tree in Figure 1 must be used to
determine from which column the failure frequencies should be taken. This table should be
read together with the explanation in paragraph 1.1.
Table 3: Failure frequencies [/tank year] for atmospheric tanks
Type of
failure
Process
installations
and other
2.4 10-3
2.4 10-2
2.2 10-4
2.2 10-3
2.2 10-4
2.2 10-3
Tank type 1
(incl. road Tank type
2*
tankers and
tankwagons)
Small leak
0.1 < d 10 mm
deq = 10 mm
Medium leak
10 < d 50 mm
deq = 25 mm
Large leak
50 < d < Dmax
deq = DL, max
Tank type
3*
Tank type
4*
Complete
outflow in 10
min.
5.0 10-6
5.0 10-7
1.2 10-8
1.0 10-8
1.0 10-8
5.0 10-5
Rupture
5.0 10-6
5.0 10-7
1.2 10-8
1.0 10-8
1.0 10-8
5.0 10-5
* For leaks these failure frequencies apply to the first (inner) shell.
14
05/05/2009
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Tank type 4
No
Tank type 3
Tank type 2
Tank type 1
05/05/2009
15
In Table 4 the failure frequency of a tank fire is displayed for the different types of liquids.
Table 4: Failure frequencies [/tank year] for tank fire in atmospheric tanks
Scenario
Tank
fire
Tank type
2.5 10-4
7.6 10-5
2.3 10-5
6.9 10-4
2.1 10-4
6.2 10-5
2.5 10-4
7.6 10-5
2.3 10-5
Definitions
Mobile atmospheric
tank
Fixed atmospheric
tank
P1 liquids
P2 liquids
P3 liquids
P4 liquids
16
05/05/2009
Chapter 5:
Heat exchangers
Failure frequency
[/heat exchanger.year]
Small leak
0 < d 25 mm
deq = 10 mm
Medium leak
25 < d 50 mm
deq = 35 mm
Large leak
50 < d 150
deq = 100 mm
6.0 10-3
3.9 10-3
1.6 10-5
1.3 10-5
Rupture
Internal pipe rupture will lead to a leak in the shell if the operating pressure in the pipes is
higher than the design pressure of the shell, and there is no or insufficient pressure
evacuation. Depending on the specific situation, it should be verified what the probability
of shell failure (leakage) as a result of pipe rupture is, and this scenario should be taken
into account separately. In this case a failure frequency of 7.1 10-3/heat exchanger.year is
assumed for pipe rupture.
05/05/2009
17
Failure frequency
[/heat exchanger.year]
Type of failure
Small leak
0 < d 25 mm
deq = 10 mm
Medium leak
25 < d 50 mm
deq = 35 mm
Rupture
P < 5 bar
8 bar P
4.6 10-3
7.0 10-3
1.8 10-2
2.0 10-3
3.0 10-3
7.2 10-3
5.5 10-6
8.3 10-6
2.0 10-5
18
05/05/2009
Chapter 6:
The generic failure frequencies for pumps and compressors are displayed in Table 7.
Table 7: Failure frequencies for pumps and compressors
Failure frequency
[/pump year] or [/compressor year]
Type of failure
Leak
deq = 0.1 Dmax
Rupture
Centrifugal pumps
With gaskets
Without gaskets
Reciprocating pumps
Compressors
4.4 10-3
1.0 10-4
4.4 10-3
1.0 10-4
05/05/2009
19
Chapter 7:
Pipe systems
In Table 8 the failure frequencies for above ground and underground pipe systems are
displayed.
Table 8: Failure frequencies for pipe systems
Medium leak
deq = 0.15 D
Large leak
deq = 0.36 D
Rupture
Failure frequency
[/year]
2.8 10-7 L/D
1.2 10-7 L/D
5.0 10-8 L/D
2.2 10-8 L/D
Underground pipeline
Type of failure
Crack
deq = 10 mm
Hole
deq = 0.5 D
Rupture
Failure frequency
[/m.year]
7.9 10-8
6.9 10-8
2.8 10-8
20
05/05/2009
Chapter 8:
For leakage or rupture of the loading/unloading hose and the loading/unloading arm during
loading and unloading activities with road tankers, tankwagons and ships, the values in
Table 9 are used.
Table 9: Failure frequencies for (un)loading arms and hoses
Hose
deq = 0.1 D
(max. 50 mm)
3 10-7
4 10-5
5.4 10-6
Rupture
3 10-8
4 10-6
5.4 10-7
Leak
05/05/2009
21
Chapter 9:
Fire in warehouses
The generic failure frequencies for a fire in warehouses are listed in Table 10 per fire
compartment.
Table 10: Failure frequencies for a fire in warehouses
Scenario
Failure frequency
[/fire compartment.year]
2.5 10-3
6.9 10-4
Definitions
Automatic fire fighting A fire fighting system in which both detection and activation
system
take place automatically, without human intervention.
Fire compartment
The smallest space within which a fire can be isolated for a
certain period of time thanks to fire-resistant materials.
22
05/05/2009
Chapter 10:
Packaging units
The following table gives an overview of the failure frequencies for packaging unit storage
and handling within a company. If several packaging units are possible on a pallet, both
types of failure for packaging unit handling must be included.
Table 11: Failure frequencies for packaging unit storage and handling
Failure frequency
Type of failure
2.5 10-5
2.5 10-5
2.5 10-6
In the case of containers containing multiple packaging units, the failure frequencies must
be applied to all items in the container in question. The container itself is not considered a
packaging unit.
Definitions
Packaging units
Packaging unit
handling
05/05/2009
23
Chapter 11:
Repression systems
If active repression systems are taken into consideration in the quantitative risk analysis,
the scenario of the failure of these measures should also always be considered.
Guideline values for the probability of failure and for the response time of some repression
systems have been gathered in Table 12. The quantitative risk analysis, however, starts
from the actual situation. The general procedure from paragraph 11.5 can be applied here
to determine the probability of failure and the response time.
It should also be taken into account that the effectiveness of a repression system can
depend on the release scenario. Small leaks are often difficult or impossible to detect
within a reasonable period of time, which can annul the effectiveness of e.g. a blocking
system (at least from a safety reporting point of view).
Table 12: Probabilities of failure and response times of repression systems
Probability
of failure
per demand
Response
time (sec)
Automatic
0.1 - 0.001
120
Semi-automatic
0.1 - 0.01
600
System
Blocking system
0.12
0.06
Non-return valve
Tested regularly
0.06
Operator intervention
during (un)loading activity
Conditions,
see paragraph 11.4
0.1
120
For the modelling one should also take into account the amount of product which is
present in the pipelines and installation parts and may still be released after the valves
have been closed.
If several active repression systems are in place, the probability of failure of the entire
system must be determined. This should be done paying the necessary attention to the
possible occurrence of common cause failures.
Passive repression systems are measures which were already in place before the release
took place. Typical passive measures are constructions such as containment systems,
bunkers and firewalls. For the quantitative risk analysis it is assumed that these measures
do not fail and that the response time is 0 sec.
24
05/05/2009
Definitions
Blocking system
Automatic blocking
system
Semi-automatic
blocking system
05/05/2009
25
26
05/05/2009
05/05/2009
27
Chapter 12:
Consequential events
The generic event tree is shown in Figure 2. Here, the possible effects are shown which
can appear in case of a release of a substance. However, no judgement is made as to the
relevance of the effects. It should be noted that the event tree does not take into account
repression systems either.
direct
ignition
PD
delayed
ignition
PV
explosion
PE
E1
PD
E2
( 1-PD) PV PE
E3
( 1-PD) PV ( 1-PE )
E4
( 1-PD) ( 1-PV )
E0
The hazardous phenomena to be taken into consideration are displayed for the different
product types in Table 13 for rupture and in Table 14 for leakage and 10-minute outflow.
Table 13: Hazardous phenomena for rupture
Effect Non-combustible substances
E0
Physical explosion
E1
E2
E3
E4
28
Group 0
Group 1
Groups 2 and 3
Physical explosion*
Fire ball (under
pressure)*
Pool fire
(pressureless)
Vapour cloud
explosion
Pool fire
Physical explosion
Physical explosion
Pool fire
Pool fire
Vapour cloud
explosion
Pool fire
Flash fire
Pool fire
Flash fire
Pool fire
Flash fire
Pool fire
05/05/2009
Table 14: Hazardous phenomena for leakage and complete outflow in 10 min.
Group 0
-
E1
E2
E3
E4
Jet fire
Pool fire
Vapour cloud
explosion
Jet fire
Pool fire
Flash fire
Jet fire
Pool fire
Toxic vapour cloud
Group 1
-
Groups 2 and 3
-
Pool fire
Pool fire
Vapour cloud
explosion
Pool fire
Flash fire
Pool fire
Flash fire
Pool fire
The generic probabilities of failure for direct and delayed ignition for the different product
groups are reflected in Table 15. In this table, the probability of explosion is also
indicated.
Table 15: Probability of direct and delayed ignition and probability of explosion
Source term
Continuous
[kg/s]
< 10
10 100
> 100
Probability
Instantaneous
[kg]
< 1,000
1,000 10,000
> 10,000
PD,
PV or
PE
Group 0
Group
1
Group
2
Group
3
0.02
0.065
0.02
0.006
0.06
0.02
0.07
PE
0.2
0.2
0.2
PD
0.5
0.04
0.065
0.02
0.006
PL
0.2
0.04
0.07
PE
0.3
0.3
0.2
PD
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.09
0.1
0.4
0.065
0.07
0.2
0.02
-
0.006
-
Average /
high
reactivity
Low
reactivity
PD
0.2
PL
PL
PE
05/05/2009
29
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
30
05/05/2009
Chapter 13:
References
05/05/2009
31
Colophon
This document is a translation in English of the Dutch Handboek Faalfrequenties 2009 voor
het opstellen van een veiligheidsrapport. In case of inconsistencies or problems, the
original language document shall take precedence over this translation.
Edited by
The Flemish Government
Environment, Nature and Energy Department
Environment, Nature and Energy Policy Unit
Safety Reporting Division
Graaf de Ferrarisgebouw
Koning Albert II-laan 20
B-1000 Brussels
Published by
J.-P. Heirman, Secretary-General
Environment, Nature and Energy Department
Deposit number
D/2009/3241/355
Edition
May 2009
32
05/05/2009