Open Access
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 225, 2018
UTP-UMP-VIT Symposium on Energy Systems 2018 (SES 2018)
Article Number 06013
Number of page(s) 11
Section Economic, environmental, social, policy and utilization aspects of energy
Published online 05 November 2018
  1. Koo, J., et al., . Proceedings of the 1st annual gas processing symposium. (2009). [Google Scholar]
  2. Rajendram, A., F. Khan, and V. Garaniya, Fire Safety J., (2015). 71: p. 79-85 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Skarsbø, L.R., An experimental study of pool fires and validation of different CFD fire models. (2011). [Google Scholar]
  4. Pula, R., et al., A grid based approach for fire and explosion consequence analysis. Process Saf. Environ., 84(2): p. 79-91 (2006). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. WENG, W., et al., Combust. Sci. Technol., 176(12) : p. 2105-2123 (2004). [Google Scholar]
  6. Kamikawa, D., et al., Combust. Flame, 142(1): p. 17-23 (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, N., et al., Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 34(2): p. 2555-2564 (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pula, R., et al., J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 18(4): p. 443-454 (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Vianna, S., A. Huser, and D.N. Veritas, Fire CFD modelling applied to offshore design. Det Norske Veritas, (2010). [Google Scholar]
  10. Planas-Cuchi, E., H. Montiel, and J. Casal, Process Saf. Environ., 75(1): p. 3-8 (1997). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Suardin, J.A., et al., J. Hazard. Mater., 165(1): p. 612-622 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Yun, G., D. Ng, and M.S. Mannan, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 50(4): p. 2359-2372 (2011). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hartzell, G., Safety Sci., 38(2): p. 147-155 (2001). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dadashzadeh, M., et al., Process Saf. Environ., 92(6): p. 616-624 (2014). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Markatos, N., C. Christolis, and C. Argyropoulos, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran., 52(17): p. 4021-4030 (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Knight, R.F., Pretty, The Impact of Catastrophes on Shareholder Value, Oxford:Templeton College. (1997). [Google Scholar]
  17. Broughton, E., Environ. Health, 4(1): p. 1 (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Markatos, N.C., Asia Pac. J. Chem. Eng., 7(2): p. 182-205 (2012). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Srebric, J. and Q. Chen,. Hvac & R Research, 8(3): p. 277-294 (2002). [Google Scholar]
  20. Gavelli, F., E. Bullister, and H. Kytomaa, J. Hazard. Mater., 159(1): p. 158-168 (2008). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Scargiali, F., et al., Process Saf. Environ., 83(3): p. 242-256 (2005). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. (HSE), H.a.S.E., Evaluation of CFD to Predict Smoke Movement in Complex Enclosed Spaces Application toThree Real Scenarios: An Underground Station, An Offshore Accommodation Module and a Building Under Construction., (2004). [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang, B. and G.-m. Chen, Process Saf. Environ., 88(4): p. 253-262 (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. McGrattan, K., S. Hostikka, and J.E. Floyd, Fire dynamics simulator (version 5), user's guide. NIST special publication, 1019(5): p. 1-186 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  25. Abbassi, R., et al., Risk-based prioritisation of indoor air pollution monitoring using computational fluid dynamics. Indoor and Built Environment, (2011). [Google Scholar]
  26. Crowl, D.A. and J.F. Louvar, Chemical process safety: fundamentals with applications, New York: Prentice Hall, (2011). [Google Scholar]
  27. Assael, M.J. and K.E. Kakosimos, Fires, explosions, and toxic gas dispersions: Effects calculation and risk analysis, CRC Press (2010). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dadashzadeh, M., et al., .,. Fire Safety J., 61: p. 324-337 (2013). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hygienists, A.C.o.G.I. Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (1995). [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhang, Y. and B. Zhao, Build. Environ., 42(2): p. 614-622 (2007). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.