07/11/18 (Soln)

ChE 342 Mass and Heat Transfer

i SafetyModule 3: Williams Owens Olefin Plant Explosion, Geismer, LA, June 13, 2013
Reboiler rupture and fire.
Problem Statement: The Williams Owens Plant in Geismar, LA produces ethylene and
propylene. A shell and tube reboiler on a fractionator column heats shell side propane and
propylene using tube side hot water.

Workers understood that oily tar had a tendency to build up on the inside of the reboiler tubes,
requiring periodic shut down for cleaning. The plant manager observed a significant decrease in
flow rate over the past day and attributed it to tar build up on the tube walls. Workers decided to
switch to the stand-by exchanger, which had not be in use for 16 months. Unknown to workers,
this stand-by heat exchanger was detached from its pressure relief valve and contained liquid
propane. When hot water was introduced into this heat exchanger, it violently ruptured and
exploded within three minutes. The incident killed two workers and injured 167.
Video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1KaykPaF8M)
Incident report: (https://www.csb.gov/file.aspx?DocumentId=6004) (Pages 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 56)
(a) It is important that chemical engineers have an understanding of what the accident was,
why it happened and how it could have been prevented in order ensure similar accidents
may be prevented. Applying a safety algorithm to the accident will help achieve this goal.
In order to become familiar with a strategy for accident awareness and prevention, view the
Chemical Safety Board video on the Williams Owens Olefin plant explosion and fill out
the following algorithm. See definitions on the last page. If necessary, view the incident
report.
Safety Analysis of the Incident
Activity: The activity in this incident is changing a process without going through the
proper review channels to evaluate that it is safe to be implemented and will not create a
hazard.
Hazard: The hazard was the new valves put in that allows the heat exchangers to be
switched when one needs to be cleaned, cut off the standby heat exchanger from its
pressure relief valve on top of the propylene fractionator.
Incident: The incident was the explosion of the heat exchanger. Heat exchangers provided
heat to the propylene fractionator needed to separate propane and propylene. When an
Page 1 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

employee went to switch to the standby heat exchanger from the currently running heat
exchanger, so it could undergo maintenance, the employee unknowingly heated liquid
propane that had leaked into the heat exchanger. The pressure built up and could not be
relieved by the pressure relief valves because they were blocked off. This build up led to
the heat exchanger exploding and igniting the propane, killing and injuring many
employees.
Initiating Event: The initiating event in this scenario was that workers believed it was
time to clean the currently running heat exchanger because the flow of water was gradually
decreasing. When the worker turned on the water of the standby heat exchanger, it heated
the propane that had accumulated in the heat exchanger while it was on standby. Since the
pressure relief valves were isolated from the stand by heat exchanger, the pressure in the
exchanger built up until it exploded and ignited the propane.
Preventative Actions and Safeguards: Some preventative actions or safeguard include
undergoing the management of change review properly before new processes are
implemented, putting into service adequate overpressure detection systems, and having a
routine maintenance schedule to prevent excess fouling.
Contingency Plan/Mitigating Actions: Some mitigating actions could have been to
include a written procedure for assessing fouling and how to switch the heat exchangers,
conducting safety culture assessments in the workplace, and performing process safety
program assessment to improve effectiveness of the program.
Lessons Learned: The lesson learned from this incident was the importance of detail in
implementing process safety because any small overlooked detail can lead to a significant
hazard being missed, like the overlooking of the pressure relief system.

Additional Information:
Inner and outer radius of heat exchanges tubes, ro and rout, can be taken as 0.4 inch and 0.5 inch
respectively. Conductivity of Carbon Steel, ks and paraffin wax, ktar are 54 𝑊 ⁄𝑚 · 𝐾 and
0.25 𝑊 ⁄𝑚 · 𝐾 respectively. Convective heat transfer coefficient for water, hw, and propane, hp,
are and respectively. Assume convective heat transfer coefficient for water, hw and for propane,
hp are 800 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 · 𝐾 and 500 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 · 𝐾 respectively.

b) Using your estimate of the thickness from part (b) in the Fluid Mechanics Module
(http://umich.edu/~safeche/courses/fluidMechanics.html) for this incident, calculate the
reduction in heat flux resulting from fouling on the inner tube wall just before switching the
standby exchanger.

Page 2 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

Figure a. Schematic of fluid flow around the tubes of the shell before (left) and after fouling (right).

Upon solving part (b) of Fluid Mechanics Module, one obtains,

𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 = √0.2𝑟𝑜
Where rtar and ro are inner radius of tube before and after fouling respectively.
Assume that heat exchanger tubes are made of Carbon Steel and fouling is due to
deposition of paraffin wax. (Hint: Evaluate temperature difference across various
regions of heat transfer, from water flowing inside the tubes of heat exchanger through
tubes and then to propane flowing in the shell. Use these temperature differences to
evaluate overall heat transfer coefficient.)

Theory: Fourier’s Law for conductive heat transfer states that heat, Q flowing across a
surface of area, A, with conductivity, k along x direction is given by Eq. (15-1)1,

𝑑𝑇
𝑄 = −𝑘𝐴 (1)
𝑑𝑥

Newton’s Law of cooling for convective heat transfer states that heat, Q flowing across a
surface of area, A with temperature difference, ΔT and convective heat transfer
coefficient, h is given by Eq. (15-11)2,
𝑄 = ℎ𝐴𝛥𝑇 (2)

1
Welty, J.R., Rorrer, G.L., and Foster, D.G. (2013). Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer
(6th. Ed.), Oregon and Rochester, New York: Wiley, 221
2 Ibid., 226

Page 3 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

When energy flows through several mediums in contact across a surface of area, A, with
overall temperature difference, ∆T, the net energy flow, Q is defined using overall heat
transfer coefficient, U. Refer Eq. (15-17)3.
𝑄 = 𝑈𝐴𝛥𝑇 (3)

To obtain U, Q is Equated to heat transfer obtained using Fourier’s Law or Newton’s

Law of cooling depending on the type of energy flow.

I. Case 1: Heat flux evaluation for tubes when there is no fouling.

Figure 1. Schematic of fluid flow around the tubes of the shell.

Flow Chart:
1. Perform 2. Obtain 3. Evaluate 4. Calculate
Shell Energy temperature overall heat energy flux.
Balance. difference across transfer
eveum. coefficient.
1. Shell Energy Balance across cylindrical surface of tube: Consider a cylindrical
shell of a thickness ∆𝑟 and length L. Overall energy balance gives,

𝐼𝑛 − 𝑂𝑢𝑡 + 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

At steady state, heat generation, consumption and accumulation terms are zero.

𝐼𝑛 − 𝑂𝑢𝑡 = 0

𝑞̇ (𝑟) · 2𝜋𝑟𝐿 − 𝑞̇ (𝑟 + ∆𝑟) · 2𝜋(𝑟 + ∆𝑟)𝐿 = 0

3
Ibid. 1, 230
Page 4 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

Where 𝑞̇ (𝑟) is the energy flux through the tube at distance r from the center.
Dividing by 2𝜋∆𝑟𝐿 and by taking ∆𝑟 tending to zero, one obtains,

𝑑
(𝑟𝑞̇ (𝑟)) = 0
𝑑𝑟
Upon integration,
𝑟𝑞̇ (𝑟) = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 (4)

For radius ro, we define heat flow through tube and heat flux through tube when
there is no fouling, Q1 and 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ respectively. Using Eq. (4), one obtains,

𝑄1 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿

2. Temperature difference evaluation: To calculate temperature difference across

various mediums, Eq. (1) is used when there is conductive heat transfer and Eq.
(2) is used when there is convective heat transfer.

Applying Eq. (2) to Region 1,

𝑄1 = ℎ𝑤 𝐴(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑜 )
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = ℎ𝑤 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑜 )
𝑄1 = 𝑞𝑜,1
𝑞𝑜,1
̇
𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑜 = (5)
ℎ𝑤

Applying Eq. (1) to Region 2,

𝑑𝑇
𝑄1 = −𝑘𝑠 2𝜋𝑟𝐿
𝑑𝑟
𝑑𝑇
𝑄1 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = −𝑘𝑠 2𝜋𝑟𝐿
𝑑𝑟
𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑟
∫ −𝑑𝑇 = ∫
𝑇𝑜 𝑟𝑜 𝑘𝑠 𝑟
𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑟𝑜 )
𝑇𝑜 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 𝑟𝑜 (6)
𝑘𝑠

Applying Eq. (2) to Region 3,

𝑄1 = ℎ𝑝 𝐴(𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑄1 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = ℎ𝑝 2𝜋𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐿(𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 𝑟𝑜
𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑝 =
ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 (7)

Summing up Equations (5), (6) and (7), one obtains,

𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 𝑟𝑜 ) 1 (8)
𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 𝑟𝑜 ( + + )
𝑟𝑜 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

Page 5 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

3. Overall heat transfer coefficient evaluation: To obtain overall heat transfer

coefficient, U1, net temperature difference obtained using Eq. (3) is equated with
(8). Using Eq. (3), one obtains,

𝑄1 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = 𝑈1 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑞𝑜,1
̇ = 𝑈1 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )

Substituting Tw-Tp from Eq. (8),

𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 𝑟𝑜 ) 1
𝑞𝑜,1
̇ = 𝑈1 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 𝑟𝑜 ( + + )
𝑟𝑜 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 1 𝑟𝑜 ) 1 (9)
= 𝑟𝑜 ( + + )
𝑈1 𝑟𝑜 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

4. Energy flux evaluation: Energy flux when there is no fouling, 𝑞𝑜,1

̇ , is evaluated
by substituting U1 from Eq. (9) into Eq. (3).

𝑄1 = 𝑈1 𝐴(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 ) = 𝑈1 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )

𝑄1 = 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿

𝑞𝑜,1
̇ = 𝑈1 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )

(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑞𝑜,1
̇ = 𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 𝑟𝑜 ) 1 (10)
𝑟𝑜 ( + + )
𝑟𝑜 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

Page 6 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

II. Case 2: Heat flux evaluation for tubes when there is fouling.

Figure 2. Schematic of fluid flow around the tubes of the shell.

Flow Chart:

1. Perform 2. Obtain 3. Evaluate 4.

Shell Energy temperature overall heat Calculate
Balance. difference across transfer energy
every medium. coefficient. flux.
1. Shell Energy Balance across cylindrical surface of tube: For calculations refer
to Step 1 of Case 1.

Due to presence of fouling, we define heat flux as 𝑞𝑜,2

̇ for Case 2 while heat flux
was 𝑞𝑜,1
̇ in Case 1 when there was no fouling. Similar to Case 1, for radius ro, we
define heat flow through tube and heat flux through tube when there is fouling as
Q2 and 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ respectively. Therefore Eq. (4) becomes,

𝑟𝑞̇ (𝑟) = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 𝑟𝑜 𝑞𝑜,2

̇ (11)

And for radius ro, one obtains heat flow as,

𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿

2. Temperature difference evaluation: To calculate temperature difference across

various mediums, Eq. (1) is used when there is conductive heat transfer and Eq.
(2) is used when there is convective heat transfer.

Applying Eq. (2) to Region 1,

Page 7 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

𝑄2 = ℎ𝑤 𝐴(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑟 )
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = ℎ𝑤 2𝜋𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝐿(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑟 )
𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
𝑞𝑜,2̇ 𝑟𝑜
𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑟 = (12)
ℎ𝑤 𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟

Applying Eq. (1) to Region 2,

𝑑𝑇
𝑄2 = −𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 2𝜋𝑟𝐿
𝑑𝑟
𝑑𝑇
𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = −𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 2𝜋𝑟𝐿
𝑑𝑟
𝑇𝑜 𝑟𝑜
𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑟
∫ −𝑑𝑇 = ∫
𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟
𝑟
ln ( 𝑜 )
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟
𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑟 − 𝑇𝑜 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜 (13)
𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟

Applying Eq. (1) to Region 3,

𝑑𝑇
𝑄2 = −𝑘𝑠 2𝜋𝑟𝐿
𝑑𝑟
𝑑𝑇
𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = −𝑘𝑠 2𝜋𝑟𝐿
𝑑𝑟
𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜 𝑑𝑟
∫ −𝑑𝑇 = ∫
𝑇𝑜 𝑟𝑜 𝑘𝑠 𝑟
𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑟𝑜 )
𝑇𝑜 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜 (14)
𝑘𝑠

Applying Eq. (2) to Region 4,

𝑄2 = ℎ𝑝 𝐴(𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = ℎ𝑝 2𝜋𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐿(𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜
𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑝 =
ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 (15)

Summing up Equations (12) through (15), one obtains,

𝑟 𝑟
ln(𝑟 𝑜 ) ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑜 ) 1 (16)
𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜 ( + + + )
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

3. Overall heat transfer coefficient evaluation: To obtain overall heat transfer

coefficient, U2, net temperature difference obtained using Eq. (3) is equated with
(16). Using Eq. (3), one obtains,

𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿 = 𝑈2 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )

Page 8 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

𝑞𝑜,2
̇ = 𝑈2 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )

Substituting Tw-Tp from Eq. (8),

𝑟 𝑟
ln (𝑟 𝑜 ) ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑜 ) 1
𝑞𝑜,2
̇ = 𝑈2 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 𝑟𝑜 ( + + + )
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝑟 𝑟
ln (𝑟 𝑜 ) ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
1 1 𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑜 ) 1
= 𝑟𝑜 ( + + + ) (17)
𝑈2 𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

4. Energy flux evaluation: Energy flux when there is fouling, 𝑞𝑜,𝑠

̇ , is evaluated by
substituting U2 from Eq. (17) into Eq. (3).

𝑄2 = 𝑈2 𝐴(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 ) = 𝑈2 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )

𝑄2 = 𝑞𝑜,2
̇ 2𝜋𝑟𝑜 𝐿
𝑞𝑜,2
̇ = 𝑈2 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )
(𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑝 )
𝑞𝑜,2
̇ = 𝑟 𝑟
ln (𝑟 𝑜 ) ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑟𝑜 )
(18)
1 𝑡𝑎𝑟 1
𝑟𝑜 ( + + + )
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

Heat flux reduction evaluation: Reduction in heat flux resulting from fouling on the inner
tube wall just before switching the standby exchanger is obtained using Eq. (10) and (18).
𝑞𝑜,2
̇
Percentage reduction in heat flux = 1 −
𝑞𝑜,1̇
𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡
ln ( )
1 𝑟𝑜 1
( + + )
𝑟𝑜 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡
=1− 𝑟𝑜 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 (19)
ln ( ) ln ( )
1 𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑜 1
( + + + )
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

0.2846 𝐾 · 𝑚⁄𝑊
=1−
3.6556 𝐾 · 𝑚⁄𝑊

= 92.21%
The heat flux is 100-92.21%=7.79% of the initial value. The reduction in heat flux due to
fouling is significantly high, this explains why the reboiler tubes required periodic shut
down for cleaning. This high value also suggests that the frequency of cleaning must be
high, highlighting the need of process safety in chemical industries.
Page 9 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

Steps to evaluate Eq. (19): Using result of part (b) of Fluid Mechanics module,𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 = √0.2𝑟𝑜 and
using data from additional information, one obtains,

1 1
= = 0.1230 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1
𝑟𝑜 ℎ𝑤 0.4 𝑖𝑛 ∗ 0.0254 𝑚⁄𝑖𝑛 ⋅ 800 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 ⋅ 𝐾
1 1
= = 0.2751 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 √0.2 ∗ 0.4 𝑖𝑛 ∗ 0.0254 𝑚⁄𝑖𝑛 ⋅ 800 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 ⋅ 𝐾
1 1
= = 0.1575 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1
𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡 ℎ𝑝 0.5 𝑖𝑛 ∗ 0.0254 𝑚⁄𝑖𝑛 ⋅ 500 𝑊 ⁄𝑚2 ⋅ 𝐾
𝑟 0.5 𝑖𝑛
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑟𝑜 ) ln (0.4 𝑖𝑛)
= = 0.0041 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1
𝑘𝑠 54 𝑊 ⁄𝑚 ⋅ 𝐾

𝑟 𝑟
ln (𝑟 𝑜 ) ln ( 𝑜 )
𝑡𝑎𝑟 √0.2𝑟𝑜
= = 3.2189 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1
𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 0.25 𝑊 ⁄𝑚 ⋅ 𝐾

Using the above values,

𝑟
ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡 )
1 𝑟𝑜 1
(𝑟 ℎ + 𝑘𝑠
+
ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡
)
𝑜 𝑤
𝑞𝑜,2
̇
= 𝑟 𝑟
𝑞𝑜,1̇ ln ( 𝑜 ) ln ( 𝑜𝑢𝑡 )
1 𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑟𝑜 1
( + + + )
𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑟 ℎ𝑤 𝑘𝑡𝑎𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ℎ𝑝 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝑞𝑜,2
̇ (0.1230 + 0.0041 + 0.1575) 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1 0.2846
= =
𝑞𝑜,1̇ (0.2751 + 3.2189 + 0.0041 + 0.1575) 𝑚𝐾𝑊 −1 3.6556

Page 10 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

(c) Review the information in the NFPA Diamond tutorial. After reviewing the information, visit the
CAMEO Chemicals website and fill out the blank NFPA Diamond to the right for propane.

Propane: https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/9018

Propane is highly flammable in nature, hence it ignites

rapidly when in contact with an ignition source. Exposure
of propane storage containers to fire may lead to an
explosion. Propane does not react with strong oxidizing
4
agents. One may experience dizziness when exposed to
propane. At higher concentrations, exposure to propane
may also cause asphyxiation.
2 0
(d) Describe what was the most unsettling to you about the incident.

EXTRA CREDIT (lots of extra credit!)

(e) Review the explanation of the components of a BowTie diagrams found here. After reviewing
the information, create a BowTie diagram for diagram for Williams Owens Olefins Plant
Explosion.

Figure 3: Left half of BowTie diagram

Page 11 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc
 07/11/18 (Soln)

Figure 4: Right half of BowTie diagram

i
In collaboration with K. S. Reshma, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and Kara Steshetz,
University of Michigan

Page 12 of 12
342Mass&HeatTransferModule(3)Soln.doc