OTC 14133

Offshore Explosion Hazard Evaluations using a 3D CFD Code with Reduced

Combustion Combined with a 1D CFD Code or Blast Curves
G. A. Fitzgerald, ABS Consulting, Inc.

Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas U.S.A., 6 9 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitt ed by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Tec hnology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
A 3D CFD model with a reduced combustion capability can
be used with a dispersion model and either a 1D CFD code or
a blast curve method to provide an accurate explosion hazard
evaluation early in the life of an offshore project. The analysis
using this alternate approach is more accurate than using the
1D CFD code or blast curves alone because it accounts for
blast wave interactions with structures, actual vent surfaces,
venting into other areas of congestion and provides a more
realistic blast wave decay for the specific scenario.
Introduction
The North Sea approach to predicting a vapor cloud
explosion (VCE) in offshore applications has been the use of
traditional three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics
(3D CFD) models. Traditional 3D CFD models can be costly
to obtain and are time consuming to operate. It would be
reasonable to expect several man-weeks per scenario to build
the traditional 3D CFD model and many days for the model to
run. Although this would provide the most accurate prediction
available, this evaluation is typically performed late in the life
of a new project because only then are sufficient details
known to develop the model. Unfortunately, this is also when
modifications are difficult and expensive to make. The tools
discussed in this alternate approach idealize the process
layout, hence a general knowledge of the process layout will
allows the using this alternate approach much sooner in
project life than typical for a traditional CFD analysis. This
has the potential for significant savings by discovering
problems early in project life. The proposed alternate
approach also results in a faster what-if analysis to evaluate
potential corrective actions.

An example application of this alternate approach is

presented for illustration. While this alternate approach is
primarily targeted for a new offshore construction project, it
also can also apply to existing offshore installations needing
an explosion hazards evaluation. This alternate approach does
not preclude the use of traditional CFD as a final validation of
the explosion hazards.
Analysis Description
This alternate approach is broken into three tasks: 1) a vapor
cloud size evaluation; 2) a peak pressure analysis; and 3) an
actual venting and blast wave interaction analysis. The vapor
cloud size evaluation uses engineering judgement, a dispersion
model, ventilation calculations, or a combination thereof to
evaluate the vapor cloud size. The peak pressure analysis is
performed using either the 1D CFD model SCOPE [1] (Shell
Code for Overpressure Prediction in gas Explosions), for
confined explosions, or a simple blast curve method such as
the latest Multi-Energy Method [2] (MEM2) or Congestion
Assessment Method [3] (CAM2), for unconfined explosions.
The actual venting and blast wave interaction analysis is
performed using the 3D CFD model CEBAM [ 4]
(Computational Explosion and Blast Assessment Model) with
a simplified (reduced) combustion computation.
This
alternate approach uses the strengths of each analysis method
to overcome inherent potential errors each method has in order
to maintain simplicity. These steps are described in more
detail in the following sections.
Vapor Cloud Size Evaluation. This alternate approach uses a
dispersion model to evaluate the release rate of the source if it
is suspected that the release may not fill the entire area with a
flammable cloud. For small confined volumes, it can easily be
assumed that the entire volume will be filled with a flammable
cloud. For larger confined volumes, the release rate from the
dispersion model is used to determine a total release mass over
a given time period. Alternatively, ventilation calculations
can easily be performed where applicable to determine how
much time is needed to obtain a flammable concentration. For
unconfined volumes, the dispersion model results can be used
to evaluate the cloud size and congested volume that is filled
by a flammable vapor.

GARY A. FITZGERALD

Explosion Peak Pressure Analysis. This task uses the

appropriate explosion prediction tool; SCOPE, MEM2, or
CAM2, as described below, to evaluate peak internal and
external (for external explosions) pressures. Confined offshore
process applications may have more vent surface available
than SCOPE can model since all the walls and the roof might
be designed to fail under high pressures. Thus, the SCOPE
peak pressure results will be conservative.
Unconfined VCEs are presently best evaluated using either
the latest Multi-Energy Method (MEM2) or Congestion
Assessment Method (CAM2). Recent developments in these
blast curve based methods have greatly increased their
accuracy and confidence and comparisons to published
experiments 5[ ] have shown them to be the best available
simple means to evaluate unconfined VCEs.
SCOPE. SCOPE is a 1D CFD code. It is an alternative to
traditional 3D CFD for confined explosions that has been
recently made available to the general public. This code can
be set up in a matter of minutes and run in a few seconds.
SCOPE also simplifies the traditional CFD approach in that
the exact process environment does not need to be replicated.
Instead, the user will idealize the environment in a number of
vertical congestion grids. The grids do not have to be evenly
spaced or have uniform blockage. This idealization approach
has resulted in a much faster means to evaluate internal VCEs
with accuracy comparable to traditional CFD models. SCOPE
is designed for confined explosions (roof and walls), but will
allow a significant amount of venting on three planes of the
scenario that can be open or covered and set to fail at a
specific pressure or time. SCOPE also allows for partial fill
and will predict when unburned gases are pushed out the vents
such that the turbulence induced by the vent causes an external
explosion. The major shortcomings in SCOPE are that
external pressure predictions are made based on blast wave
decay using blast curves from the main vent only and does not
account for interactions with buildings.
Blast wave
interactions with buildings can either shield or focus a blast
wave, or result in a reduced blast load due to quick clearing
for small buildings.
MEM2. The MEM2 method uses the original MEM blast
curves that are pressure and duration curves based on
hemispherical VCEs and divided into 10 severity levels from 1
to 10. The original MEM was first published in 1984 [6] and
has been updated in 1998 [7] and 2001 [2]. With the MEM2, a
peak pressure is calculated and a severity level is solved for
that corresponds to the calculated pressure. The MEM2
calculations are made using the following inputs:
Volume blockage ratio (VBR): Congested volume divided
by total volume.
Length of flame travel (Lp): A hemispherical radius is
calculated from the congested volume filled with the
flammable vapor.
Laminar burning velocity (LBV): Maximum burning
velocity of a slightly richer than stoichiometric fuel/air
mixture in a quiescent volume without congestion or other
turbulence inducing factors.

OTC 14133

Average congestion diameter: Hydraulic diameter has

been found to provide best results for most process
layouts. Hydraulic diameter is defined as four times the
ratio between the cumulative volumes and the cumulative
surface areas of an object distribution. The actual average
diameter is used for repetitive obstacles with the
same diameter.
Energy Efficiency: Less than 0.5 bar peak pressure results
in an energy efficiency of 20%. Less than 1 bar peak
pressure results in an energy efficiency of 50%.

CAM2. The CAM2 method is also based on hemispherical

VCE blast curves. It was published in 1995 [8], updated in
1999 [9] and an error corrected in 2001 [3]. Peak pressure is
calculated from one of two equations, one for 2D- and one for
3D-flame expansion. Additional calculations are used to decay
the blast with distance, determine duration and rise time to
peak pressure and blast wave shape. The CAM2 peak
pressure calculations are made using the following inputs:
Dimensions: Length, width and height, x, y, and z,
respectively, of congested region.
Number of obstacles in each direction: Number of
obstacle layers the flame front passes in the x, y and z
directions.
Area blockage ratios (ABRs) in each direction: ABRs in
the direction of the flame front in the x, y and z directions
using the most congested regions in each direction.
Complexity factor: A variable ranging from 1 to 4 to
describe complexity of congestion. A complexity of 1
would be idealized, repetitive congestion. A complexity
of 4 would be a typical process layout.
Fuel factor and expansion ratio: Two variables provided
for several fuels to account for reactivity and amount of
expansion upon ignition.
Actual Venting and Blast Wave Interaction Analysis.
Another new type of CFD model, referred to as a CFD code
with reduced combustion computation, is called CEBAM.
CEBAM simplifies the traditional 3D CFD model by
foregoing vapor cloud dispersion or flame acceleration, thus
the set up time is only a few hours and run time is only a day
or two for most applications. However, this introduces
potential errors in that the user must specify a vapor cloud size
and flame speed to the VCE. While CEBAM is a fully
functional 3D CFD code that has been publicly validated [10,
11], the accuracy of the results are directly dependent upon the
user assumptions for vapor cloud size and flame speed. These
assumptions require an experienced user or additional
modeling to produce accurate results. A major advantage of
using CEBAM is the ability to model blast wave interactions
with structures and the ability to replicate true building failure
criteria that produces vent surfaces for the VCE.
The last step in the analysis involves building the CEBAM
model, identical to the SCOPE model if it was used in the
previous step, and adjusting flame speeds until the CEBAM

OTC 14133

OFFSHORE EXPLOSION HAZARD EVALUATIONS US ING A 3D CFD CODE WITH REDUCED

COMBUSTION COMBINED WITH A 1D CFD CODE OR BLAST CURVES

model predicts the same peak pressures as was predicted by

the explosion peak pressure analysis model. In this process,
we are tuning the CEBAM model to duplicate the results
from the explosion prediction tool for an equivalent
configuration. With two major variables, flame speed and grid
size, many combinations of these two can exist to predict an
accurate peak overpressure. The pressure decay rate is also
dependent upon grid size. Communications with the CEBAM
developer have indicated that for most applications, a grid size
of 2 to 5 feet is sufficient to get accurate blast wave decay
rates at relatively low pressures.
If SCOPE was used as the source term model, once the
CEBAM flame speed and grid size is found to reproduce the
SCOPE peak pressure results, the actual vent surfaces and
failure pressures (those beyond the capabilities of SCOPE) are
then included in the CEBAM model. Since the CEBAM
model can evaluate more vent surface area than SCOPE, the
resulting peak internal pressure in CEBAM may be less than
that produced by SCOPE, even though the flame speeds were
adjusted to produce the same initial peak pressures for the
same vent criteria. This is because the flame speed adjustment
to match pressure was performed using identical venting
criteria for both models. When that flame speed is later used
in CEBAM with increased venting, the effect of the increased
venting decreases the resulting pressure predictions. This
helps to remove some of the conservatism introduced in
SCOPE for cases where the modeled vent surface area is less
than actual and will result in a more realistic and accurate
answer while still being conservative.
Example Scenario
This example potential explosion scenario (PES) is fictitious
and is not meant to represent any specific facility but does
show the advantages of the proposed alternate approach. A
fictitious Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading vessel
(FPSO) is shown in Figure 1. The scenario is identified to be
at the aft part of the process congestion, flanked by equipment
and/or vent panels that provide symmetrical confinement and
a grated deck roof with equipment above to provide vertical
confinement. The vessel is 800 feet long and 120 feet wide.
The scenario occupies a space with dimensions of 25 feet x
100 feet x 25 feet tall. The scenario layout is shown in Figure
2. The outboard edges of the scenario are open. The scenario
assumes a process area with uniform congestion. This area
will be exposed to a release of LPG. An ignition source is
postulated at the center of the PES.
Turret
Quarters

Helicopter Pad

Process Congestion

Vapor Cloud
Figure 1 Fictitious FPSO Layout

Figure 2 Scenario Confinement Layout

Vapor Cloud Size Evaluation. The dispersion model used in

this evaluation was the Shell FRED [ 12] (Fire, Release,
Explosion, Dispersion Hazard consequence modeling
package) model. A two-inch leak of saturated liquid LPG at
96 psi resulted in a leak rate of 63 lb/s.
With the given compartment size and the calculated
release rate, it would be fair to assume the entire compartment
could be quickly filled with a stoichiometric mixture. It would
also be fair to assume the confinement would prevent the
accumulation of a large amount of vapors outside this area.
Explosion Source Term Evaluation. Since the scenario
assumes center ignition but SCOPE requires ignition be
assumed at one edge, the SCOPE model would be considered
as a half-symmetrical simulation with a solid back wall
creating a plane of symmetry. This has the effect of
reproducing the actual scenario with center ignition. Since
SCOPE can only model vents in the planes behind, in front
and to one side of the ignition, the open vent in the roof was
moved to the side and the side vents that would relieve at 2 psi
were not modeled. The vents and confining planes modeled in
SCOPE are shown in Figure 3. The idealized SCOPE scenario
included five grids with round blockage ratios between 4 and
15%, square blockage ratios between 0 and 5% and average
obstacle diameters between 10 and 20 inches. No rear vent
was modeled due to the wall of symmetry that was used to
reproduce a center ignition scenario. The main vent was open
without any restrictions. Three side vents were used; one that
was open and two with panels that relieved at 1.25 psi and a
delay of 50 ms.

GARY A. FITZGERALD

100

Starboard

View of PES from Forward

Free-Field Pressure (psi)

View of PES from Aft

Port

OTC 14133

SCOPE Free-Field Pressure

CEBAM Free-Field Pressure (modeling SCOPE vent planes)

10

Port
Ignition
Location
No Confinement (open)
at Wall of
Symmetry
Fixed Confinement
Confinement Relieves at 1.25 psi

Figure 3 SCOPE PES Representation

The resulting peak internal pressure predicted by SCOPE

was 13.7 psi. An external explosion centered 8.2 feet outside
the vent with a radius of 39 feet was predicted to have a peak
pressure of 11.25 psi.
Actual Venting and Blast Wave Interaction Analysis. A
CEBAM model was first created with the same vents defined
in the SCOPE simulation to reproduce the results given by
SCOPE. A flame speed of Mach 1.0 with a grid size of 2.5
feet was found to result in the same pressures and impulses
predicted by SCOPE at the point the SCOPE blast wave
begins to decay. Note that because of the constant pressure
prediction with external explosions, SCOPE does not begin
the pressure wave decay until the edge of the external
explosion is reached. These results are plotted against the
SCOPE results in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Since blast
predictions very close to the PES were not of concern for this
example, the 2.5 foot CEBAM grid was acceptable inside the
PES. If pressures near the PES were needed, a finer grid in
the PES would have been needed which would have had the
result of lowering pressures in the near field.
Communications with the CEBAM developer indicate that if
high pressures are of interest, then a small grid is needed but if
the pressures of interest are relatively low, then a coarse grid
is sufficient. Thus, if both near field and far field pressures
had been of interest in this example, the grid inside and near
the PES may have been set at 1 foot increments with the
remainder of the domain at 2.5 foot grid spacing.

10

Distance (feet)

100

1000

Figure 4 CEBAM Pressure Results with SCOPE Vent Planes Vs

SCOPE Pressure Results
1000
Free-Field Impulse (psi-ms)

Starboard

SCOPE Free-field Impulse

CEBAM Free-Field Impulse (modeling SCOPE vent planes)

100

10
1

10

Distance (feet)

100

1000

Figure 5 CEBAM Impulse Results with SCOPE Vent Planes Vs

SCOPE Impulse Results

The CEBAM model, with important FPSO structures and

actual vent conditions with the previously determined flame
speed and grid spacing, was then run to determine loads on the
occupied areas of the FPSO. A model that represented only
the aft portion of the ship with a wall of symmetry along the
keel was used to reduce computational time.
The
computational domain is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Symmetrical Domain Evaluated in CEBAM

OFFSHORE EXPLOSION HAZARD EVALUATIONS US ING A 3D CFD CODE WITH REDUCED

COMBUSTION COMBINED WITH A 1D CFD CODE OR BLAST CURVES

OTC 14133

Blast loads were calculated at 7 probe locations shown in

Figure 7. The SCOPE blast loads were free field loads and the
CEBAM blast loads were applied blast loads (included
reflections were applicable). Thus, reflection factors had to be
used to make the SCOPE loads applied loads. The resulting
applied blast loads are given in Table 1.

1
3

Aft

Forward

5
7

6
4

Forward

Aft

In contrast, the predicted impulse was higher for the

CEBAM analysis by a factor of up to three times the SCOPE
results. This is because impulse is primarily dependent upon
explosion energy, which in turn is directly dependent upon
PES volume. In SCOPE, the PES volume was defined as the
enclosure containing the vapor cloud and congestion external
to the enclosure is not allowed. In CEBAM, the vapor cloud
is allowed to vent into surrounding areas of congestion. In
this example, there was congestion above and forward of the
vapor cloud as previously shown in Figure 6. Thus, since
impulse is dependent upon explosion volume, the CEBAM
results are more realistic because it accounts for the venting of
the vapors into other areas of congestion that would be
expected to contribute to the explosion.
A contour plot of maximum pressures is provided in
Figure 8. This shows the pressure increases due to reflections
on the wall facing the PES (probe 1 location) and also some
reflections on the side wall where probe 6 was located. Note
that if the aft walls of the PES were not predicted to fail, then
the only failures would have been the PES forward walls. In
this case, the SCOPE results at the quarters may have
increased slightly (using 2 psi forward vents instead of 1.25
psi aft vents) but the CEBAM loads at the quarters would have
decreased due to increased directionality (the PES would have
been more like a shotgun). Cases have been observed where
CEBAM predicted pressures were half that of SCOPE due to
directional effects.

Figure 7 Plot of Probe Locations on Quarters Where Blast Loads

Were Calculated

Table 1 Pressures and Impulses Calculated by

SCOPE and CEBAM
SCOPE
CEBAM
Pressure (psi) /
Pressure (psi) /
Impulse (psi-ms) Impulse (psi-ms)
1*
2.6 / 30
1.9 / 71
2
1.2 / 14
1.1 / 38
3
1.2 / 14
1.0 / 35
4
1.2 / 14
0.8 / 36
5
1.1 / 13
0.8 / 35
6
1.1 / 13
1.0 / 36
7
1.0 / 13
0.9 / 34
* This location has appropriate reflection factors applied
to the SCOPE free field blast loads
Probe

These results show lower predicted pressures for the

CEBAM results. The average pressure reduction was 20%
while probe 4 observed a 32% reduction. Since probe 1 was
less than twice the pressure of probe 2, probe 1 probably
benefited by clearing effects. Probes 2 and 3 likely benefited
from shock wave separation at the wall edges and probes 4-7
benefited due to shielding by the larger structure. Probe 6
observed some reflection, but much less than a factor of two,
resulting in a pressure close to the SCOPE prediction without
any reflections. Had a reflection been applied to the SCOPE
result at probe 6, the pressure difference at that point would
have been much more than that shown.

Figure 8 Contour Plot of Maximum Pressures at Deck Height

Predicted by CEBAM

There may be situations where CEBAM can predict higher

pressures than SCOPE for locations near the explosion
primarily due to directional effects of the blast wave that
SCOPE cannot model. This is because SCOPE always decays
blast pressures from the external explosion centered at the
main vent. Thus, cases can exist where the area of concern is
near the side vent and SCOPE may under-predict the pressure.
It would be conservative to apply the SCOPE external
explosion peak pressure to all vent surfaces, but depending on
the situation, it could be overly conservative.

GARY A. FITZGERALD

Unconfined Scenarios
Without a high degree of confinement, the current version of
SCOPE cannot accurately predict the peak overpressure.
Unconfined scenarios can be evaluated in an identical manner
to confined scenarios except a blast curve method is selected
to generate the peak pressure used to determine the CEBAM
flame speed instead of SCOPE. Of the major public methods
available, comparisons to test data have shown that the latest
MEM2 and CAM2 methods will provide the most accurate
predictions [5].
Limitations of Alternate Approach
The results show that situations like the example scenario
would benefit from this alternate approach due to the
significant explosion venting, congestion outside the PES
enclosure and some directional effects. However, where these
factors are not present, this method may not have much
advantage over a SCOPE analysis or MEM2/CAM2 blast
curve analysis alone. Thus, this alternate approach lends itself
to cases where the scenario has significant venting and/or
cases where directional effects may be significant and/or cases
where the vapors could vent into other areas of congestion that
cannot be modeled by SCOPE.
Summary
The proposed alternate approach of using a dispersion model
with an explosion overpressure prediction tool such as
SCOPE, MEM2 or CAM2 and the CFD code CEBAM has
shown to provide a method to predict offshore explosion
consequences without the use of traditional detailed 3D CFD.
The SCOPE code and the blast curve methods, MEM2 and
CAM2, accurately predicts a peak explosion pressure, but uses
methods based on hemispherical VCEs for decaying the blast
wave without taking into account interactions with buildings
and only a limited amount of directionality. The CEBAM
code requires the user to input a flame speed to predict a
deflagration explosion overpressure, potentially resulting in
error introduction, but will accurately model a blast wave
directional affects and interactions with buildings with the
proper grid size. This alternate approach uses the strengths of
each analysis method to overcome inherent potential errors
each method has in order to maintain simplicity. The alternate
approach presented is best used in situations where the
scenario has significant venting and/or where directional
effects and blast wave interactions with buildings could be
significant and/or cases where the vapors could vent into other
areas of congestion that cannot be modeled by SCOPE. Thus,
this alternate approach allows the user to accurately predict
both the peak explosion pressure and the blast wave
interactions with buildings. This alternate approach results in
the most accurate prediction currently available without using
a detailed 3D CFD analysis and permits the evaluation of an
offshore construction project early in life when modifications
can be made more easily.

OTC 14133

References
1 Shell Code for Overpressure Prediction in Gas Explosions
(SCOPE) Version 4.08.1, Shell Global Solutions, Chester,
United Kingdom, June 2001.
2 Mercx, W.P.M., van den Berg, A.C., and van Leeuwen, D.,
Application of correlations to quantify the source of strength of
vapour cloud explosions in realistic situations Final report for
the project: GAMES, TNO Report PML 1998-C53, TNO
Prins Maurtis Laboratory, October 1998 (work completed in
1998 but subject to a publication embargo until 2001).
3 Puttock, J.S., Developments in the congestion assessment
method for the prediction of vapour-cloud explosions,
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Loss
Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries,
Stockholm, June 2001.
4 Computational Explosion and Blast Assessment Model
(CEBAM) Version 1.00.13, Analytical and Computational
Engineering, Inc., San Antonio, USA, December 2001.
5 Fitzgerald, G.A., A Comparison of Simple Vapor Cloud
Explosion Prediction Methods, 2001 Proceedings of the Mary
Kay OConnor Process Safety Center Symposium, College
Station, USA, October 2001.
6 Van den Berg, A.C., The Multi-Energy Method, a framework
for vapour cloud explosion blast prediction, Journal of
Hazardous Materials, Vol. 12, pp1-10.
7 Eggen, J.B.M.M., GAME: development of guidance for the
application of the multi-energy method, Prepared for Health
and Safety Executive, Prepared by TNO Prins Maurits
Laboratory, 1995 (work completed in 1995 but subject to a
publication embargo until 1998).
8 Puttock, J.S., Fuel Gas Explosion Guidelines the Congestion
Assessment Method, Proceedings of the 2nd European
Conference on Major Hazards On - and Offshore, Manchester,
England, October 1995.
9 Puttock, J.S., Improvements in Guidelines for Prediction of
Vapor-Cloud Explosions, Proceedings of The International
Conference and Workshop on Modeling the Consequences of
Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials, San Francisco,
USA, October 1, 1999.
10 Clutter, J.K., "A Reduced Combustion Model for Vapor Cloud
Explosions Validated Against Full-Scale Data," Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 14, Feb 2001, pp.
181-192.
11 Clutter, J.K., and Luckritz, R.T. "Comparison of a Reduced
Explosion Model to Blast Curve and Experimental Data,"
Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 79, Oct 2000, pp. 41-61.
12 Fire, Release, Explosion, Dispersion Hazard consequence
modelling package (FRED) Version 3.1.6.0, Shell Global
Solutions, Chester, United Kingdom, March 2000.