Search Results

There are 130 results for: content related to: The Buncefield explosion: Were the resulting overpressures really unforeseeable?

  1. Conclusions Drawn from the Buncefield and Naples Incidents Regarding the Utilization of Consequence Models

    Chemical Engineering & Technology

    Volume 32, Issue 2, February, 2009, Pages: 207–231, M. Hailwood, M. Gawlowski, B. Schalau and A. Schönbucher

    Article first published online : 29 JAN 2009, DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200800595

  2. Lessons Learned from Toulouse and Buncefield Disasters: From Risk Analysis Failures to the Identification of Atypical Scenarios Through a Better Knowledge Management

    Risk Analysis

    Volume 32, Issue 8, August 2012, Pages: 1404–1419, Nicola Paltrinieri, Nicolas Dechy, Ernesto Salzano, Mike Wardman and Valerio Cozzani

    Article first published online : 23 DEC 2011, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01749.x

  3. The Buncefield explosion: a benchmark for infrasound analysis across Central Europe

    Geophysical Journal International

    Volume 177, Issue 2, May 2009, Pages: 491–508, L. Ceranna, A. Le Pichon, D. N. Green and P. Mialle

    Article first published online : 24 MAR 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03998.x

  4. Infrasound radiated by the Gerdec and Chelopechene explosions: propagation along unexpected paths

    Geophysical Journal International

    Volume 185, Issue 2, May 2011, Pages: 890–910, David N. Green, Julien Vergoz, Robert Gibson, Alexis Le Pichon and Lars Ceranna

    Article first published online : 4 MAR 2011, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.04975.x

  5. The Buncefield explosion and fire–lessons learned

    Process Safety Progress

    Volume 30, Issue 2, June 2011, Pages: 138–142, M. Sam Mannan

    Article first published online : 11 MAR 2011, DOI: 10.1002/prs.10444

  6. You have free access to this content
    The Buncefield oil depot incident: a discussion of the meteorology

    Weather

    Volume 62, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages: 325–330, H. N. Webster, E. B Carroll, A. R. Jones, A. J. Manning and D. J. Thomson

    Article first published online : 29 NOV 2007, DOI: 10.1002/wea.164

  7. Seismo-acoustic analysis of the Buncefield oil depot explosion in the UK, 2005 December 11

    Geophysical Journal International

    Volume 172, Issue 3, March 2008, Pages: 1123–1134, L. Ottemöller and L. G. Evers

    Article first published online : 17 JAN 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03701.x

  8. A method for barrier-based incident investigation

    Process Safety Progress

    Robin Pitblado, Tony Potts, Mark Fisher and Stuart Greenfield

    Article first published online : 27 JUN 2015, DOI: 10.1002/prs.11738

  9. Overfill protective systems—Complex problem, simple solution

    Process Safety Progress

    Volume 29, Issue 4, December 2010, Pages: 283–287, Angela E. Summers and William Hearn

    Article first published online : 20 SEP 2010, DOI: 10.1002/prs.10399

  10. CFD for Reconstruction of the Buncefield Incident

    Process and Plant Safety: Applying Computational Fluid Dynamics

    Simon E. Gant, G. T. Atkinson, Pages: 313–330, 2012

    Published Online : 10 APR 2012, DOI: 10.1002/9783527645725.ch18

  11. You have free access to this content
    Effects of the primary explosion site and bulk cloud in VCE prediction: A comparison with historical accidents

    Process Safety Progress

    Volume 34, Issue 2, June 2015, Pages: 147–153, Carl Regis Bauwens and Sergey B. Dorofeev

    Article first published online : 11 SEP 2014, DOI: 10.1002/prs.11703

  12. Using alarms as a layer of protection

    Process Safety Progress

    Todd Stauffer and Peter Clarke

    Article first published online : 12 JUN 2015, DOI: 10.1002/prs.11739

  13. Perfluorooctane sulphonate in raw and drinking water sources in the United Kingdom

    Water and Environment Journal

    Volume 25, Issue 1, March 2011, Pages: 13–21, Clare L. McLaughlin, Simon Blake, Tom Hall, Mark Harman, Rakesh Kanda, Jim Foster and Paul C. Rumsby

    Article first published online : 29 JUL 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2009.00183.x

  14. Finite difference synthesis of infrasound propagation through a windy, viscous atmosphere: application to a bolide explosion detected by seismic networks

    Geophysical Journal International

    Volume 185, Issue 1, April 2011, Pages: 305–320, Catherine de Groot-Hedlin, Michael A. H. Hedlin and Kris Walker

    Article first published online : 7 FEB 2011, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2010.04925.x

  15. You have free access to this content
    Bisherige Analyse des Buncefield-Ereignisses – Sind neue Konsequenzmodelle erforderlich?

    Chemie Ingenieur Technik

    Volume 81, Issue 8, August, 2009, Pages: 1182–1183, A. Schönbucher, M. Gawlowski, I. Vela and M. Hailwood

    Article first published online : 19 AUG 2009, DOI: 10.1002/cite.200950379

  16. Plant and Process Safety, 8. Management of Safety in the Chemical and Petrochemical Industry

    Standard Article

    Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry

    Jürgen Herrmann, Claudia Schwiederowski and Aileen Ruddat

    Published Online : 15 OCT 2012, DOI: 10.1002/14356007.q20_q07

  17. You have free access to this content
    Infrasonic forerunners: Exceptionally fast acoustic phases

    Geophysical Research Letters

    Volume 34, Issue 10, May 2007, L. G. Evers and H. W. Haak

    Article first published online : 22 MAY 2007, DOI: 10.1029/2007GL029353

  18. You have free access to this content
    Impact of DDT on FPSO explosion risk assessment

    Process Safety Progress

    Volume 34, Issue 1, March 2015, Pages: 44–57, Olav Roald Hansen, Remi Martini, Jaewoong Choi and Yonghee Ryu

    Article first published online : 4 JUL 2014, DOI: 10.1002/prs.11694

  19. Common lessons learned from an analysis of multiple case histories

    Process Safety Progress

    Volume 30, Issue 2, June 2011, Pages: 143–147, Xiaole Yang, Linh T.T. Dinh, Diana Castellanos, Carmen H. Osorio Amado, Dedy Ng and M. Sam Mannan

    Article first published online : 11 APR 2011, DOI: 10.1002/prs.10446

  20. Why Implement Process Safety Metrics

    Guidelines for Process Safety Metrics

    , Pages: 9–18, 2009

    Published Online : 16 DEC 2009, DOI: 10.1002/9780470579817.ch2