Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
    • Reliability Engineering Management DRAFT
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Sanjeev Saraf Leave a Comment

How To Estimate Injury Or Potential Fatality From Thermal Radiation Exposure?

How To Estimate Injury Or Potential Fatality From Thermal Radiation Exposure?

While performing consequence modeling we are often required to evaluate damage to population and property from a fire.

Thermal radiation impact to humans from a fire should be based on the dosage – i.e. the intensity of exposure and the duration of exposure. Furthermore, such an impact from thermal radiation on population should consider the protection offered by clothing/buildings and the ability of a person to find a shelter from radiation.

Usually the surface emissive power for a hydrocarbon flame is 180 – 250 kW/m2 and the radiation intensity drops as the square of the distance.

What critical thermal radiation values should one use in consequence modeling? Following table provides a rough guidance on typical impacts from heat exposure.

Critical Thermal Radiation Values

Radiation Intensity (kW/m2)Level of Damage
37.5Sufficient to cause damage to process equipment
25Minimum energy required to ignite wood at indefinitely long exposure
12.5Minimum energy required for piloted ignition of wood, and melting of plastic tubing. This value is typically used as a fatality number
9.5Sufficient to cause pain in 8 seconds and 2nd degree burns in 20 seconds
5Sufficient to cause pain in 20 seconds. 2nd degree burns are possible. 0 percent fatality. This value of often used as an injury threshold.
1.6Discomfort for long exposures

Does that mean everyone exposed to 12.5 kW/m2 will die? Hardly! Let us look in detail at the heat injuries.

Thermal radiation hazards can manifest in terms of burns of different degrees:

  • First-degree burns are superficial injuries that involve only the epidermis or outer layer of skin.
  • Second-degree burns occur when the first layer of skin is burned through and the second layer, the dermal layer, is damaged but the burn does not pass through to underlying tissues. Usually second degree burns heal within three weeks.
  • Third-degree burns involve all the layers of the skin. While a third-degree burn may be very painful a burnt person feels little or no pain because the nerve endings have been destroyed. As the burns heal, dense scars form.

Street clothing is expected to provide 3 times more time to feel the pain from thermal radiation at 5 kW/m2. An average person is clothed over 80% of the body. Note that if the clothing catches fire, a severe burn injury is expected and 75 kW/m2 is considered a threshold value for spontaneous ignition of clothes. When exposed to a heat source or in case of emergencies, human beings are expected to take an evasive action such as ambulate away from the hazard (reducing the exposure time) or take a shelter (reducing the thermal radiation exposure intensity). An average person can be assumed to be capable of running at 4 miles/hour (1.8 m/s) during an emergency. Thus in case of a fire emergency (and hopefully not trapped), an average individual would have traveled 54 meters a span of 30-seconds and expectantly found a shelter.

So while it is ok to assume a critical thermal radiation threshold value for fatality and injury, we must not forget that this may result in a conservative hazard zone if the  duration of exposure isn’t sufficient.

Filed Under: Articles, on Risk & Safety, Operational Risk Process Safety

« Germination of a Failure-Why Does Stuff Really Break Down? – Q&A p2
Preventive Maintenance: Who Said It First? »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Photo of Sanjeev SarafArticles by Sanjeev Saraf
in the Operational Risk, Process Safety article series

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Posts

  • How Reliability Engineers Can Improve Their Communication in Information Sessions
  • FMEA Detection Risk: Insights and Advices
  • How to Structure Your ERM System
  • Rate of Occurrence of Failure
  • What is Six Sigma and How is it Used in Quality Engineering?

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.