ICMIEE18-248 Comprehensive Hazard Identification
International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial and Energy Engineering 201823-24 December, 2018, Khulna, BANGLADESHICMIEE18-248Comprehensive Hazard Identification and Safety Evaluation for Shahjalal Fertilizer IndustryLimitedShanzida Sultana Ema*, Anamika Roy, Md Tanvir SowgathDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, BANGLADESHABSTRACTThe objective of the paper was to identify the relative hazard index for all the main ammonia process units of ShahjalalFertilizer Company limited and calculate hazard area for probable toxic release of the ammonia storage tank. Various indiceswere extensively used for ranking various units of a chemical process industry on the basis of the hazards they pose of theaccidental probability of fires, explosions or toxic release with some restrictions and limitation. So, a new, user-friendly tool forswift yet comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation index called Safety Weighted Hazard Index (SWeHI) wasintroduced for representation of overall comprehensive hazard identification and safety evaluation factors SFCL plant. TheDow chemical exposure index (CEI) was also calculated for the process units handling flammable and toxic materialsrespectively. The hazard area of the ammonia storage tank for probable toxic release with the atmospheric conditions data ofthe plant location was also determined using ALOHA software and CEI value. The SWeHI ranking was between 1.74 (NGloading) and 10.61 (primary reformer).Keywords: hazards, SWeHI, Dow CEI.1. IntroductionIndustrial safety is important as it safeguards human life,especially in high risk industries like ammonia-ureaplant operating under high pressure and temperature.The first step in any risk assessment procedure forindustrial safety involves hazard identification, oranswering the question: what can go wrong [1]?However, hazard identification is easier said than done,and it is becoming more difficult as the complexity andvariety of the technologies which pose risk continuallyincreases. Some key facts are needed to understand theprocess of making a chemical safety assessment. Thecommunication system and tasks within the supplychain are related to the chemical safety assessment [2].The roots of the hazards, as well as the strategies forreducing them, lie in the man-machine managementsystem that runs any chemical plant and it is not alwayseasy to discover the weaknesses in such a system. Thehazards are rarely obvious, or accessible to simplevisual inspection, [3] but it is very important to evaluatesafety of the plant and surrounding lives and properties.In this paper, hazard identification and safety evaluationfor the ammonia process plant of Shahjalal FertilizerIndustry Limited is presented. The best possible indicesfor the purpose are used for ranking and hazard area foraccidental toxic release (ammonia release) such, SWeHIas SWeHI method [4] and Dow fire and explosion index(FEI) [5], Dow chemical exposure index (CEI) [6].ALOHA software was also used for simulating thehazard area with environmental conditions [7].The safety measures in industries such as use ofpressure valves, flare systems, venting systems, alarms,and emergency shutdowns are to be designed fordevelopment of unusual situations during operation atthe design stage of any industrial project. It is veryimportant in case of approval of plant design, legaldocuments and installment of insurance. These are* Shanzida Sultana Ema. Tel.: 88-01954907763E-mail addresses: emashanzida@gmail.comcalled means of inherently safer design [8-11]. In spiteof that there remains some factors like model inaccuracy,human error, sensitivity of the process etc., which maycause failure of safety systems and accidents. That’swhy to ensure safety the process industry periodicallyneeds the attention of safety audits [12]. But, howshould it be measured that a plant has risk or issufficiently safer? This is where safety indices come.Different kinds of safety indices are there to rank thesafety of process or equipments of any industry, such asDow fire and explosion index, Dow chemical exposureindex, the Mond fire, explosion and toxicity index[13,14], the IFAL index [15], the mortality index [16],HIRA method [17], SWeHI method, extras. There aresome safety indices that provides few rapid rankingtechniques and databases such as the substance hazardindex [18] and the NFPA ranking [19, 20], but theyhave different applicative sides. Each of them is usedfor different purpose.The available indices, including the well-known Dowand Mond indices, and HIRA rank chemical processunits mainly works in terms of the hazardous substancesand operating conditions associated with the concernedunits or process equipment. Most of them do not countin existing safety measures and human communication.Though Dow and Mond indices do consider somefactors such as offsetting index values’ in the case ofthe Mond Index and credits factor’ in the case of theDow index to account for the safety measures existingor planned in the unit [21, 22] but much greater rigorous,accuracy, and precision are needed in quantifying theimpact of safety measures on the values of the hazardindices. Besides they are used for different purpose withdifferent calculative method.The Dow FEI relies on the calculation of a fire andexplosion index which is then used to determine fireprotection measures and, in combination with a damage
factor, to derive the base maximum probable propertydamage [10]. Obviously, it is used for flammablematerials, specially gas and liquid [22].The Mond index and Dow CEI are used for exposureranking of toxic materials [11-13]. They have fairlysimilar calculation procedures. Dow CEI is relativeranking system where the Mond index gives a brieferview of the damage [21].The IFAL index is too complex for manual calculationand used both to calculate damage due to accidents ofmajor units of a process plant. It used to be the primarilyfor insurance assessment purposes [23].This the mortality index is a measure of the lethalitywhich is computed on the basis of the number of deathsper ton of material involved [15].HIRA method is more systematic, comprehensive andreliable than previous index systems. It provides morebrief data on safety matters. Some calculations weredone according to this method.SWeHI provides a single frame’ view of the industry orthe desired process unit the hazards posed by it under agiven set of external forcing factors. It simultaneouslyintegrates this HAZOP information with the safetymeasures to represent the radius of the hazard areaunder moderate hazard (50% probability of fatality/damage) due to the operation to installed safety feathers.It also accounts for the environmental setting. Itaccounts for almost all factors of the process industry[17]. It a complete and easy index to rank relativehazardous units of a process industry including allpossible risk factors. In this paper, SWeHI wascalculated for main units of ammonia plant of SFCL.For NG loading, primary reformer, secondary reformer,ammonia storage tank and ammonia reactor werecalculated to be 1.74, 10.61, 4.32, 7.12 and 2.59. Thenumbers indicate if the units are low, moderate orhighly hazardous. The CEI and hazard area was alsocalculated for ammonia storage tank under SFCLenvironmental condition as it can greatly affect thehuman health surrounding the area.2.1 SWeHI methodThe SWeHI methodology was collected from reference4. In mathematical term of SWeHI is represented as,or, F F2(7)2. MethodologyFor ammonia plant of Shahjalal Fertilizer Industrylimited hazardous units of industry can be classified intwo groupsa) Fire Hazardsb) Toxic HazardsFor fire hazards, Dow fire explosion index (FEI) iscalculated and for toxic release, Dow chemical exposureindexes (CEI) are calculated only for ammonia storagetank due to frequent accident in this unit. Primary andsecondary reformer have the highest probability of fireexplosion. At the same time, ammonia storage tank andammonia reactor have the probability of toxic release ofammonia and CEI (chemical exposure index) have beencalculated. This is also been simulated by ALOHAsoftware to show the affected hazard area of toxicrelease of storage tank at plant’s average atmosphericcondition. For hazard ranking SWeHI method is used.or, F F3 (if AP VP and PP AP)(8)SWeHI B/A(1)Where, B is the quantitative measure of the damage thatmay be caused by a unit. It is measured in terms of areaunder 50% probability of damage, A represents thecredits due to control measures and safety arrangementsmade to counter the undesirable situations.B B1 B2(2)B1 represents damage due to fire and explosion, whileB2 considers damage due to toxic release.2.1.1 B1 methodologyB1 has different a methodology for storage units; unitsinvolving physical operations such as heat transfer,mass transfer, phase change, pumping and compression;units involving chemical reactions; transportation unitsand other hazardous units such as furnaces, boilers,direct-fired heat exchangers, extraa.For the storage tank, there were three energy factors tobe calculated, F1 (only for chemical energy release), F2and F3. Their corresponding equation are given belowF1 0.1M Hc /K(3)F2 1.304 10-3 PP V(4)F3 1.0 10 -3 (1/ T 273) (PP-VP)2 V(5)The impact of pressure (presented by F2 and F3) werequantified as follows,F F2 F3(if VP AP and PP VP)(6)So, total Hazard potential (F1 pn1 F pn2) pn3 pn4 pn5 pn6 pn7 pn8(9)Here pn1-pn8 are penalty factors. They represent theimpact of temperature, pressure, distance, quantity inton, flammable and/or reactive characteristics of achemical, the density of the units at the site, externalfactors such as earthquake and vulnerability of thesurroundings accordingly.They are calculatedaccording their potential risk due to temperature,pressure, distance extra with probabilistic analysis ofHIRA method [4].For units involving physical units, hazard potential canbe calculated using equation 9, but penalty calculationwill be different.For, units involving chemical reactions (for ammoniareactor), new factors must be calculated, F4 is energyfactor for reaction energy.ICMIEE18-248- 2
F4 M Hr /K(10)The nature of the reactions is presented as pn9 andrelated to the probability of side reactions’ or runawayreactions’ is represented as pn10 [4]. So,hazard potential (F1 pn1 F pn2) F4 pn9 pn10 pn3 pn4 pn5 pn6 pn7 pn8(11)For other hazardous units B1 can be calculated asHazard potential F1 pn1 pn2 pn3 pn4 pn5 pn6 pn7 pn8(12)All the hazard potential mentioned above can berepresented by B1 (as they are for flammable material).2.1.2 B2 methodologyThe estimation of B2 was done with one core factor,named as the G factor’, and several penalties. The Gfactor was accounted for the accidental release of superheated liquid from the unit, the release of gases woulddirectly lead to dispersion in the atmosphere andcausing build-up of lethal toxic load and liquefied gaseshaving two-phase release. All are responsible for toxicrelease disasters. The G factor is represented by,G S mcr1-cr8 are credits for safety measurements already existin the unit or emergency response system (ERS). Theywere calculated specifically for SFCL plant. cr1 standsfor ERS; cr2 for disaster management plan (DMP); cr3for other damage control measures; cr4 for generalcontrol system like temperature, pressure, level control;cr5 for installation of detecting devices; cr6 foremergency control systems like interlock; cr7 are forgeneral human characteristics and probable humanerrors and cr8 for quantification of credit for equipmentreliability [4, 27-31]. Most of the information regardingcredit calculation for SFCL, were collected personallyfrom some of the employees of SFCL and students ofBUET who were internee of SFCL. Some data was alsocollected from the literature review [32,33]. Most of thecalculation was proceeded with statistical data andprobabilistic equations in plotted graph [4].After calculating B and A, SWeHI numbers werearranged. The ranking was done accordingly fig 1.(13)m is the anticipated mass release rate of materialspresent in the unit and S is dependent on the physicalstate of the materials of the unit. It is calculated throughthe NFPA ranking shown in table 1.Table 1 NFPA rank for evaluating SNFPALiquefied 5After calculating G, B2 was calculated by equation 14where a 25.35 and b 0.425.B2 a (G pnr1 pnr2 pnr3 pnr4 pnr5 pn6 pn7)b(14)pnr1-pnr5 are penalty factor represented operatingtemperature, operating pressure, vapor density, toxicityof the chemical that are being handled, and sitecharacteristics and soil type [20,24-26]. They werecalculated differently. Some of their values were fixedbased on the characteristics of the unit.2.1.3 A methodologyHazard control index, A represents present credits forthe safety arrangements planned or exist on the unit asnumbers.A 0.15 (1 cr1)(1 cr2)(1 cr3)(1 cr3)(1 cr4)(1 cr5)(1 cr6)(1 cr7)(1 cr8)(15)Fig.1 SWeHI Hazard Ranking where HH: HighlyHazardous, H: Hazardous, MH: Moderately Hazardous,LH: Less Hazardous2.2 Dow CEIThe Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) provides a simplemethod of rating the relative acute health hazardpotential to people in neighboring plants orcommunities from possible chemical release incidents.For ammonia storage tank, CEI was calculated. It can beexpressed by the equation,CEI 655.1 (AQ/ERPG-2)(16)Where, AQ is airborne quantity (kg/sec), ERPG-2 value(mg/m3) [The value is taken from AIHA guideline].ERPG is abbreviation of emergency response systemguideline. [34] It is fixed for a toxic material ERPG aresame for the operating pressure and temperature. If thegas releases from the storage tank,ICMIEE18-248- 3
AQ 4.751 10-6 D2Pa {MW/(T 273)}(17)Where, Pa absolute pressure, MW molecular weight ofthe ammonia, D diameter of the probable hole of thestorage tank in millimeter. For ammonia storage tankliquid ammonia may release and then vaporize inatmospheric conditions. So equation will be,AQ 5 Fv L 9.0 10-4 A0.95 {MW Pv/(T 273)} (18)Fv (Cp/Hv) (Ts -Tb)(19)L 9.44 107 D2ρl (1000Pg/ ρl) 9.8h(20)The symbols have their usual meaning. [35, 36]3.2 CEI valueAfter calculation using excel, CEI value for ammoniastorage has been found 89.9. This indicates that it ismoderately toxic but it only depends on operatingtemperature and pressure. So, nothing else can bepredicted from this analysis.3.3 ALOHA softwareIn ALOHA, for SFCL average environmental conditionfor the ammonia storage tank, two kinds of hazard areawere simulated; one for toxic vapor release and anotherfor blast area of a vapor cloud. The simulated areashows that how much area will be mostly affected if anyaccident takes place3.3.1 Toxic area of vapor cloud2.3 Hazard area using Aloha SoftwareALOHA which is elaborated as Areal Locations ofHazardous Atmospheres, is the hazard modelingsoftware program for the CAMEO software suite. It isused widely to plan for and respond tochemical/hazardous materials emergencies. Detailsabout a real or potential chemical/hazardous materialsrelease can be entered into ALOHA for generatingthreat zone (hazard area) estimated for various types ofhazards. This software can also be used for modelinghazard area for toxic gas clouds, flammable gas clouds,Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosions (BLEVEs),jet fires and vapor cloud explosions. The estimatedhazard area are shown on a grid in ALOHA. The redthreat zone represents the worst hazard level; the orangeand yellow threat zones represent areas of decreasinghazards [37, 38].3. Results and DiscussionThe results found from the calculation is expressedbelow.Fig.2 Hazard area calculation of ammonia storage tankfor toxic release3.3.2 Blast area of vapor cloud3.1 SWeHI RankingTable 2 SWeHI ranking for main units of ammoniasection of dary397.90 105.22 397.90reformer108.06SWeHIRank B/A1.74HH10.61SWeHIRank B/A4.32AmmoniaStorage 255.18 296.27 296.27 115.29Tank7.12Ammonia112.64 138.64 138.64Reactor2.59110.2LHMHHLHFig.3 Hazard area calculation of ammonia storage tankfor blast area of vapor cloud4. ConclusionTo identify the hazard of SFCL through an index(SWeHI) for assessing hazards in chemical processindustries. As there are locals around the plant, CEI andICMIEE18-248- 4
ALOHA software simulation were also used (as mostlyused) for Ammonia storage tank. The purpose of thestudy was to acknowledge the SWeHI method for thecontribution of safety measures in its final hazardassessment score with greater rigor, accuracy, andprecision than that achieved in the prevailing indices.The SWeHI has also been based on more systematic andreliable methods for hazard identification as it considersa larger number of parameters for hazard quantification.It is so complete, simple and rigorous that it can help ininsurance procedure too. A ‘snap-shot picture’ ofammonia process units of SFCL is presented throughindices. In near future, the SFCL authority can use thedata for further safety measures.NOMENCLATUREcrCredit factorpenalties for damage indexpnestimationpenalties for toxic damage indexpnrestimationPPprocessing pressure, kPaTtemperature, CTPtransportation pressure, kPaVvolume of the chemical, cu mFvFlash fractionPvVapor PressureplLiquid PressureREFERENCES[1] ECHA, May. "Guidance on informationrequirements and chemical safety assessment."Chapter R 8 (2008)[2] Carmichael, Neil G., Hugh A. Barton, Alan R.Boobis, Ralph L. Cooper, Vicki L. Dellarco,Nancy G. Doerrer, Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp,John E. Doe, James C. Lamb Iv, and Timothy P.Pastoor."Agriculturalchemicalsafetyassessment: a multisector approach to themodernization of human safety requirements."Critical reviews in toxicology 36, Vol. 1. pp 1-7,(2006).[3] Sugiyama, Hirokazu, U. Fischer, K.Hungerbühler, M. Hirao, Decision frameworkfor chemical process design including differentstages of environmental, health, and safetyassessment." AIChE Journal 54, Vol. 4, pp1037-1053, (2008).[4] F. I. Khan, T. Husain, and S. A. Abbasi, Safetyweighted hazard index (SWeHI): a new, userfriendly tool for swift yet comprehensivehazard identification and safety evaluation inchemical process industrie, Process Safety andEnvironmental Protection 79, Vol 2, pp 65-80,(2001).[5] Dow, Dow’s Fire and Explosion HazardClassification, Midland, US, (1994).[6] Dow, Dow’s Chemical Exposure Index, AIChE,New York (1994).[7] N. Abramson, THE ALOHA .falljointcomputerconference, pp. 281-285. ACM, (1970).[8] M. Bartley, B. David, and M. Scott,Socioeconomic determinants of health: Healthand the life course: why safety nets matter. Bmj314, Vol. 7088, pp 1194, (1997).[9] AM. Heikkilä, M. Hurme, M. Järveläinen,Safety considerations in process synthesis,Computers & chemical engineering, Vol 20, ppS115-S120, (1996)[10] M. Gentile, WJ Rogers, MS Mannan, Gentile,Development of a fuzzy logic-based inherentsafetyindex,ProcessSafetyandEnvironmental Protection, Vol 81, pp.444-456,(2003).[11] H.O. Madsen, S. Krenk, and N.C.Lind, Methods of structural safety. CourierCorporation (2006).[12] Am. Heikkilä, Inherent safety in process plantdesign: an index-based approach. VTTTechnical Research Centre of Finland, (1999).[13] D. J. Lewis, The Mond fire, explosion andtoxicity index development of the Dow Index,AIChE on Loss Prevention, New York, (1979).[14] B. J. Tyler, A. R. Thomas, P. Doran, and T. R.Grieg, A toxicity hazard index, Hazards XII,IChemE Symposium, Vol. 141, pp 351-366,(1994)[15] H. B. Whitehouse, IFAL—a new risk analysistool In Institution of Chemical Engineerssymposium series, vol. 309. (1985).[16] J. G Marshall, and J. H. Burgoyne. The size offlammable clouds arising from continuousreleases into the atmosphere, In Inst. Chem.Symp, Vol. 49, p. 103. (1977).[17] F. I. Khan, and S. A. Abbasi, Techniques andmethodologies for risk analysis in chemicalprocess industries, Journal of loss Preventionin the Process Industries 11, Vol 4, pp 261-277,(1998).[18] API, Management of process hazards,American Petroleum Institute RecommendedPractice 750 (1st Ed.), Washington DC. (1990)[19] NFPA, Identification of hazardous material,National Fire Protection Agency-Code 704,Quincy, Massachusetts, (1989)[20] reProtectionAssociation, USA, (1992)[21] P. Andreasen, & B. Rasmussen, Comparison ofmethods of hazard identification at plant level.Journal of Loss Prevention in the ProcessIndustries, Vol 3(4), pp 339-344, (1990).[22] J. E. Ricart, M. Á. Rodríguez, P. Sánchez,mSustainability in the boardroom: An empiricalexamination of Dow Jones SustainabilityWorld Index leaders, Corporate Governance:ICMIEE18-248- 5
the international journal of business in society,Vol 5(3), pp.24-41, (2005).[23] J. Singh, and G. Munday, IFAL: a model for theevaluation of chemical process losses. InDesign 79 Symposium. Institute of ChemicalEngineering Midlands Branch London, (1979)[24] F. I. Khan, and S. A. Abbasi, Major accidentsin process industries and analysis of theircauses and consequences, J Loss Prevention inProcess Industries, vol 12, pp 361-378, (1999).[25] F. I. Khan, and S. A. Abbasi, Accident hazardindex: a multiattribute method for processindustry hazard rating, Trans IChemE Part B,Proc Safe Env Prot, vol 75, pp 217-224, (1997)[26] F. I. Khan, and S. A. Abbasi, Accidentsimulation as a tool for assessing andcalculation environmental risk in CPI: a casestudy, Korean J Chem Eng, vol 11, pp 12-19,(1998).[27] G. P. Williams, Safety performance inammonia plants: survey VI, Process SafetyProgress, vol 18, pp 78-81, (1999).[28] T. A. Kletz, Process safetyÐan engineeringachievement, Proc IMechE, vol 205: pp 11,(1991).[29] M. D. Topf, Improve employee morale toreduce injuries, Chem Eng Progress, pp 56-58.(1998)[30] F. I. Khan, and S. A. Abbasi, The worstchemical industry accident of 1990s, whathappened and what might have been: aquantitative study, Process Safety Progress, vol18, pp 135-145, (1999).[31] V.A.Ciliberti,Usecriticality-basedmaintenance for optimum equipment reliability,Chem Eng Prog, vol 1, pp 63-67, (1998)[32] M.M. Hasan, Al Mahmud and M.F. Howladar,Rules and Regulation of Transmission andDistribution of Natural Gas and its Applicationin Bangladesh. In ICPE , Vol. 2016, pp 019.(2016)[33] A. E. Haque, Natural Gas Management ofBangladesh: Future Powerhouse of South-EastAsia?. In The 1st International AppliedGeological Congress, Department of Geology,pp. 26-28, (2010).[34] R. W. Perry, & M. K. Lindell, Preparedness foremergency response: guidelines for theemergency planning process. Disasters, vol 27,pp 336-350, (2003).[35] G. J. Ruiz-Mercado, R. L. Smith., & M. A.Gonzalez, Sustainability indicators forchemical processes: I. Data needs. Industrial &Engineering Chemistry Research, vol 51(5), pp2309-2328. (2012).[36] G. J. Ruiz-Mercado, R. L. Smith., & M. A.Gonzalez, Sustainability indicators forchemical processes: II. Data needs. Industrial& Engineering Chemistry Research, vol 51(5),pp 2329-2353. (2012).[37] X. Liu, J. Kountouriotis, A. P. Petropulu, & K.R. Dandekar, ALOHA with collision resolution(ALOHA-CR): theory and software definedradio implementation. IEEE Transactions onSignal Processing, vol 58(8), pp 4396-4410,(2010).[38] M. J. Gharabagh, H. Asilian, S. B. Mortasavi,A. Z. Mogaddam, E. Hajizadeh, & A.Khavanin, Comprehensive risk assessment andmanagement of petrochemical feed and producttransportation pipelines. Journal of LossPrevention in the Process Industries, vol 22(4),pp 533-539, (2009).ICMIEE18-248- 6
Dow fire and explosion index, Dow chemical exposure index, the Mond fire, explosion and toxicity index [13,14], the IFAL index [15], the mortality index [16], HIRA method [17], SWeHI method, extras. There are some safety indices that provides few rapid ranking techniques and databases such as the substance hazard index [18] and the NFPA ranking .
Several standard hazard identification tools that can help you document the hazard-identification and risk-management process are: Hazard identification is the foundation of a safe workplace. Job hazard analysis (JHA) Also referred to as a job safety analysis (JSA), a JHA is a systematic way of identifying hazards
a GHS hazard class and category. Signal Words: "Danger" or "Warning" are used to emphasize hazards and indicate the relative level of severity of the hazard, assigned to a GHS hazard class and category. Hazard Statements: Standard phrases assigned to a hazard class and category that describe the nature of the hazard.
Conducting a Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (HIVA) is the initial step supporting the emergency management process of hazard preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Hazard identification refer
What is Hazard Classification? Hazard classification is the process of evaluating the full range of available scientific evidence to determine if a chemical is hazardous, as well as to identify the level of severity of the hazardous effect. When complete, the evaluation identifies the hazard class(es) and associated hazard category of the chemical.
Hazard Communication Program – 9/3/2020 5 Appropriate pictogram showing the chemical’s hazard class. Appendix A shows the pictograms that are associated with each hazard class. Hazard statement describing the nature of the hazard Precautionary statement recommending the steps to be taken to safely use, handle, store
Division 1.2 - Explosives that have a projection hazard but not a mass explosion hazard. Typical examples are certain power charges. c. Division 1.3- Explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard. Typical examples are
2.4 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT 35 2.5 SEISMIC HAZARD RESULTS 37 2.5.1 Hazard curves for selected cities 37 2.5.2 Uniform hazard spectra for selected cities 39 2.5.3 Seismic hazard maps 40 2.5.4 Set of stochastic scenarios 43 2.5.5 Comparison of the results with the elastic design spectra defined in NSCE-02 and Eurocode-8 43
Fundamentals; Harmony; Jazz, Pop, and Contemporary Music Theory (including Twentieth-Century Music); and Form in Music. The format for each volume is consistent: 1. The left column lists terms to help you organize your study and find topics quickly. 2. Bold indicates key concepts. 3. Each volume ends with a Remember-Forever Review and More
