Verification and validation of consequence and risk models

Verification and validation of consequence models
UKELG, 19-20 September 2007 Cardiff, Wales

Henk W.M. Witlox, DNV Software

Verification and validation of consequence models
Introduction Discharge Dispersion Flammable effects

© Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved

26 October 2007

Slide 2

1

All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 3 Quality procedure for model development Define model . detailed) and coding Model testing Documentation Review Model integration into overall product © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 4 2 .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Continuous release with rainout flashing two-phase discharge from vessel vapour-plume centre-line jet fire explosion or flash fire pool fire droplet trajectory SUBSTRATE point of rainout pool © Det Norske Veritas AS.Literature review .Solution method and algorithm Design (preliminary.Formulate physical and mathematical model .

Large-scale experiments Sensitivity analysis – overall robustness and effect parameters .Against parallel ‘verification’ Excel spreadsheet .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Model testing Verification . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 6 3 .Against other model Validation against experimental data – justify model assumptions .Against analytical solution .Base case .Parameter variations (single or multiple parameters) © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 5 Key references for consequence and risk modelling Dutch Yellow Book (1997) Loss Prevention Process Industries Lees (1996) Updated Mannan (2005) Perry Chemicals Engineering Handbook (1999) CCPS guidelines Dispersion (1996) Flammable effects (1994) QRA (2000) © Det Norske Veritas AS.Small-scale experiments (isolating phenomenon) .code solves correctly mathematical model .

relief systems. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 7 Discharge model Range of scenarios .No up-to-date overview of experiments (benchmark tests) .Leak from vessel.Droplet size Literature survey . … .Numerous discharge models .Sub-cooled liquid. flashing liquid. or gas release Data . instantaneous.Flow rate. velocity and liquid fraction (both orifice and post-expansion data) .No published established systematic model evaluation Literature review to establish experimental dataset Application to Phast discharge models © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 8 4 . short or long pipes.Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Discharge model expansion zone vessel (stagnation) pipe flow leak orifice atmosphere © Det Norske Veritas AS.

8 0.Subcooled and saturated water jets .6 0.g.4 1.validation against Isle of Grain (full-bore and partial leaks – LPG) © Det Norske Veritas AS.Hydrocarbon releases .ideal gas (choked and un-choked) .4 0.Process simulators . CCPS publications) Validation .Long pipe .Sozzi and Sutherland (varying pipe length) .5 Pipe length (m) 2 2.Analytical flow-rate equations .2 1 0.Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Discharge model verification and validation Verification .incompressible liquid (Bernoulli) .Uchida and Narai (varying pipe length and stagnation pressure) .5 1 26 October 2007 1.53-Sozzi&Sutherland Ratio of predicted to observed flowrate (-) 1.Many other experiments .8 PHAST6.53-Uchida&Narai 1.5 Slide 10 5 .Worked-out examples in literature (e.6 PHAST6. All rights reserved 0.Orifice releases of butane (Shell) .2 0 0 © Det Norske Veritas AS.Full-bore and orifice releases of liquid propane (Shell) . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 9 Discharge model validation for sub-cooled water release 1.

passive © Det Norske Veritas AS. touching down.Inventory 120 100 80 Mass (kg) 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 t(s) 40 50 60 © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 11 Dispersion (example PHAST Unified Dispersion Model UDM .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Validation against P66: mass expelled against time (45. mixing layer Dispersion phases: jet. elevated. ground-level. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 12 6 . heavy. lift-off.3% breach) P66 .continuous dispersion) WIND z circular cross-section truncated cross-section semi-elliptic cross-section jet release x ELEVATED PLUME y TOUCHING DOWN GROUND-LEVEL PLUME Elevation phases: elevated.

evaporation (confined pools) . TNO Gaussian concentration profile Finite duration . HTAG (3D isothermal) Passive dispersion .Verification: SLAB/HGSYSTEM [finite-duration correction model – FDC] .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Dispersion module verification and validation Near-field elevated/jet dispersion .Validation: McQuaid (2D isothermal). mixture.Verification: analytical.Verification: analytical solution (horizontal jet).Validation: spills on water/land. HEGADAS (pure component. wide range of chemicals (LNG.Verification: analytical solution. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 13 Dispersion module verification and validation (continued) Thermodynamics . HF) .Verification: analytical solution (2D).Validation: Schotte experiment (HF) Pool spreading/evaporation .Verification: GASP .simultaneous spreading and evaporation © Det Norske Veritas AS. HEGADAS (3D) . propane. vertical jet correlations Heavy dispersion . …) .Validation: Kit Fox [quasi-instaneneous model (QI) and FDC] © Det Norske Veritas AS.spreading (non-volatile chemicals) . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 14 7 .

Freon-12 (Thorney Island) Continuous and finite-duration dispersion from area source . experiment KF0706) 100 10 Centreline concentration (mol%) 1 Phast 6.HF (Goldfish) Continuous dispersion from pool .CO2 (Kit Fox) © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 15 Dispersion – Validation for Kit Fox experiment (20 second release of CO2.Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Dispersion – Validation against large scale experiments Continuous passive dispersion .Prairie Grass Continuous elevated two-phase jet .LNG (Maplin Sands. Burro.LPG (Maplin Sands) Un-pressurised instantaneous . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 16 100 1000 8 .1 0.53 (FDC) Experimental 0.01 1 10 Downwind distance (m) © Det Norske Veritas AS.Ammonia (Desert Tortoise and FLADIS) . Coyoto) .Propane (EEC) .

Empirical correlations for fire geometry and surface emissive power . jet fires and pool fires Mathematical model . Bennett et al.Horizontal natural gas (Johnson.Jet fire (cone) .Jet fire: .Vertical natural gas (Chamberlain) .Two-phase LPG (Bennett et al.Pool fire: .Pool fire (tilted cylinder) .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Fireballs.LNG (Montoir.Radiation at given location by means of integration along fire surface Verification .Comparison against other models Validation . Johnson) .Fireball (sphere) .Hexane (Lois and Swithenbank) .Horizontal liquid crude oil (Selby and Burgan) © Det Norske Veritas AS.) .Simple hand calculations and/or spreadsheet . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 17 Pool fire model (Phast model POLF) WIND H θ D © Det Norske Veritas AS.) . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 18 9 .

length RL α W1 b θj Lb X © Det Norske Veritas AS.53 5 6 7 Slide 19 8 Measured heat flux (kW/m2) © Det Norske Veritas AS. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 20 10 .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Validation against Johnson LNG pool fire experiments 8 7 Predicted heat flux (kW/m2) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 26 October 2007 0% deviation -15% deviation 15% deviation -40% deviation 40% deviation Johnson (1992) PHAST 6. All rights reserved Jet fire .Chamberlain pure-vapour model (no crosswind) WIND Z cone tilt by wind lift-off distance W2 widths.

All rights reserved Explosion modelling Comparative study by Fitzgerald .Validation: .LNG (BFETS -SCI) © Det Norske Veritas AS.LNG.TNO Multi energy (MULT) .Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Validation against Johnson LNG jet fire experiments 35 0% deviation 30 Predicted heat flux (kW/m2) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 -15% deviation 15% deviation -40% deviation 40% deviation Johnson (1994)-Simulated Data PHAST 6.Baker Strehlow (BSEX) .Shell Congestion Assessment Model (CAM) .TNO) .Key models: .53 5 10 26 October 2007 15 20 25 Slide 21 Measured heat flux (kW/m2) © Det Norske Veritas AS. LPG (EMERGE . All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 22 11 .

00E+04 1.00E+01 5. All rights reserved 26 October 2007 Slide 23 12 .00E+00 1.Validation against EMERGE 6 experiment (LPG.00E+04 5.Verification and validation of consequence and risk models Explosion .00E+01 4.00E+01 Distance from edge (m) © Det Norske Veritas AS. medium scale) 6.00E+04 Overpressure (Pa) 3.00E+04 0.00E+01 2.00E+00 0.00E+04 Test Average Test Maximum BSEX Results MULT Results 2.00E+04 4.00E+01 3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful