Definition of On-Site and Off-Site Explosion Loading

Total Raffinage Chemie Explosion Loading and Response Seminar: 26 September 2012, Brussels
Definition of explosion loading

Kees van Wingerden
GexCon AS
Bergen, Norway
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Contents
Explosion loads
Far field blast prediction
Near field: why use CFD?
Near field: FLACS
Near field: Examples
Summary
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Explosion loads
Within the explosion (0-2 cloud
radii) and in near field (2-5 cloud
radii)
Pressure load
Explosion wind
Heat transfer
(Convective/radiation/conductive)
Smoke
Pressure affects in general
Far field
(> 5 cloud radii)
buildings / big objects where a

pressure difference can be
Pressure load
maintained during a while
Explosion wind
Wind (drag) = 1/2u2 affects
Separation of near and far field is
especially slender objects where
not exact
pressure differences across the
object are quickly diminished.
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Contents
Explosion loads
Near field: FLACS
Summary
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Far field blast prediction methods

Application: prediction of far field blast caused by vapour
cloud explosions in petrochemical and chemical facilities
Estimate of overpressure and duration in the far-field as a
function of distance to the cloud centre
Necessary input parameters: combustion energy of fuel
participating in blast generation; some methods require
information on initial strength
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Examples of far field blast prediction methods

TNT method: Load predicted as an equivalent load from
TNT-explosions
TNT equivalency factor must be defined (can be very
difficult)
Assumption that all released fuel participates in blast
generation
Multi-Energy and Baker-Strehlow-Tang methods: Graphs for
estimating pressure at distance to cloud centre
Function of source strength / maximum flame speed
Only combustion energy of fuel-air cloud in congested
areas is taken into account
Limited to spherical symmetric assumption
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Multi-Energy method
Series of blast curves (generated by computer
code) giving blast overpressure, duration and
shape as a function of combustion energy
scaled distance
Necessary input parameters: initial blast
strength and participating combustion energy
Initial blast strength is estimated on the basis of
level of congestion, maximum length of flame
propagation and fuel reactivity
ME-method excludes detonation
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Multi-Energy method
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
Initial blast strength (estimate)
VBR = Volume Blockage Ratio

Lf is maximum flame propagation length
D = determining obstacle diameter
Sl = laminar burning velocity fuel
Sc = scaling parameter taken equal to D
a = 0.84; b = 2.75
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
10
Initial blast strength (verification)
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
11
Generation of more than one pressure wave (in case of

multiple separated congested areas inside gas cloud)
Separation distance between
obstructed areas containing gas
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
12
Guidance with respect to separation

distance
For explosions in an obstructed part where the
explosion overpressure exceeds 1 bar the separation
distance to a second nearby obstructed part shall
exceed half the horizontal dimension of the
obstructed part where the initial explosion occurs
For weak explosions (0 bar) this separation distance
can be decreased to quarter of the horizontal
dimension of the obstructed part
In between these two data, a linear interpolation is
proposed
Connecting pipe-racks in between two obstructed
parts may increase necessary separation distance
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
13
Example: Flixborough
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
14
Example: Multi-Energy method

Satisfactory in far-field - correct input of
source strength is required
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
15
Baker-Strehlow-Tang
Set of numerically derived blast curves
Curves represent different flame speeds
expressed using Mach number
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
16
Baker-Strehlow-Tang blast curves
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
17
Baker-Strehlow-Tang flame speed table
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
18
VCEs in large obstructed areas

VCEs in obstructed areas
are non-symmetric
P = 0.10 barg
symmetry is assumed in
both the Baker-StrehlowTang method, ME-method
and TNT-equivalency
methods
P = 10 barg
One shall therefore be

careful when using simple
methods, especially for
prediction of pressures in
the vicinity of the gas
cloud/obstructed areas
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
19
Example: Directional blast loading. Effect of

ignition source location (propylene cloud in 50
m x 25 m x 5 m facility; ignition location north)
E
N
S
W
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
20
Example: Directional blast loading. Effect

of ignition source location
Distance
from
plant
centre
(m)
FLACS
(direction)
TNT eq.
method
MEmethod
(initial
strength
6)
SW
NW
NE
SE
23.4
1.1
0.14
0.14
1.2
0.9
0.5
37.5
0.92
0.1
0.11
0.58
0.37
0.45
58.7
0.24
0.06
0.07
0.32
0.17
0.4
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
10
21
Contents
Explosion loads
Near field: FLACS
Summary
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
22
Why use CFD?

Predicting outcome of accidental
leaks & explosions require correct
representation of the surroundings
(geometry) and its effect on:
Ventilation and dispersion
Jet release (impinging)
Ignition position
Explosion (positive feedback
mechanism)
Keywords: geometry, 3D, spatial
variance
www.gexcon.com
Alternatives to
CFD generally
ignore geometry!
GexCon AS
11
23
Why use CFD?

When representing the full chain of events in a probabilistic
risk analysis a poor representation of the effect of the
surroundings/geometry on each element of the chain will
have an enormous impact on the overall outcome of such
an analysis
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
24
Why use CFD?

Allows for studying the effect of mitigating measures
related to layout improvements (e.g. safety gaps) and
the effect of waterspray
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
12
25
Effect of facility geometry on flow

around facility and ventilation inside
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
26
Release in open and obstructed areas
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
13
27
Explosions: effect of obstacle orientation
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
28
Explosions: effect of obstacle orientation
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
14
29
Contents
Explosion loads
Near field: FLACS
Summary
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
30
Can explosion loads in this environment be

calculated with simple models?
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
15
31
CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)

Model and simulate real life processes using fundamental
conservation equations (mass, momentum & energy
balances) and digital computers
Define a simulation domain (part of the real world)
The domain is divided into boxes/volumes
Define initial conditions and boundary conditions
Solve conservation equations (Navier-Stokes + +)
Predict what will happen in the real world
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
32
CFD is the tool to combine knowledge

Many phenomena at smaller scales than
realistic grid resolution (0.01m-1.00m)
flame reaction zone
obstructions
turbulence
spray
water mitigation
flow
Flow solver: models based on

established equations
experimental input
expert knowledge
simplifications where appropriate
1mm droplets break-up into

m mist to mitigate flames
Both experiments, experts and simplified tools benefit from interaction with CFD
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
16
33
CFD models for prediction of explosion

consequences
Calculates explosion loads for complex geometries
Based on solution of partial gas dynamic differential equations
Physical submodels describe flow and combustion processes
Specialized CFD tools: FLACS, EXSIM, Auto-Reagas
General purpose CFD tools
Other non-commercial
tools (COM3D, REACFLOW)
Validation is of paramount importance

www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
34
CFD Equations (FLACS)

Flow solver:
Full 3D Cartesian N-S flow solver
SIMPLE method, compressible
extension
Transport equations for fuel/fuel mix.
Distributed porosity concept (PDR)
Source terms for chemical reactions
Euler-model for droplet transport
v
P,
Turbulence:
k- model
wall functions
sub-grid contributions
Equations seem to be similar for all CFD-tools
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
17
35
Sub-Grid Modelling (FLACS)

Several scales must be solved on realistic grid sizes (0.1-2m)
Turbulence model is one of several SUB-GRID that need to be developed
Initial combustion model
Flame model
Flame folding around objects
Water deluge model
Models for panels
Subgrid pipes increase pressure factor of 6
Development and validation of

sub-grid models :
easy to make a model
difficult to get accuracy
Validation, validation, validation
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
36
Combustion Modeling (FLACS)

Various options
Specified burning velocity
Models for burning velocity
Flame library for gases
Models for flame wrinkling & turbulent quenching
Sub-grid objects enhance the flame area (flame folding)
Rigorous models
Reaction kinetics
Thermodynamics/ chemical equilibrium
Multi-environment models
PDF based models
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
18
37
Geometry modeling alternatives

To get correct prediction of dispersion and explosion
loads a correct geometry model is crucial !
Options:
Manual modelling based on drawings and photos
Import from other CAD software
Laser scanning
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
38
FLACS takes into account congestion effects
FLACS-simulations:
Max. pressure 1 barg
Max. pressure 6 barg
100 air changes per hour
50 air changes per hour
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
19
39
Geometry handling (FLACS)

CFD and geometry details needed
for many scenarios
Explosion: 15 15 small pipes =>
100 pressure
Dispersion: details can be crucial
Geometry handling
porosity concept
sub-grid modeling
Same geometry dispersion,
explosion & fire
Efficient concept
FLACS interfaces can handle
100.000+ objects
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
40
Pressure loads on far field targets

12m
24m
48m
FLACS takes into account

Directional effects (ignition point)
Confinement/congestion (source strength)
Geometry interaction (reflection/interference)
Multiple sources
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
20
41
Contents
Explosion loads
Near field: FLACS
Summary
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
42
Explosion analysis of liquefaction plant

Small/medium sized liquefaction plant under construction
Concern: loads to ship terminal and surrounding residential
areas
Dimensioning blast load need to be determined
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
21
43
Liquefaction plant:
Dimensioning
load identified
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
44
Far field loads
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
22
45
VCE prediction using FLACS
CFD includes effects neglected by

simple methods:
- reflections, focussing, end ignition
and geometry effects
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
46
Contents
Explosion loads
Near field: FLACS
Summary
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
23
47
Verification & Validation

Analysts paradox
Everyone believes an experiment except the
experimentalist. No one believes an analysis except
the analyst
Verification & validation need to be given adequate
attention
New approaches of V & V are needed to quantify
uncertainty and to accept use of computations as virtual
reality by regulatory authorities
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
48
Validation important
FLACS validated against numerous tests
Various ventilation studies (offshore platforms)
Dispersion experiments (wind tunnel & field tests)
Explosion experiments (wide range of scenarios)
GexCon performing wind measurements offshore
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
24
49
Validation: dispersion
Example: Maplin Sands tests
Conducted by Shell Research in 1980
34 spills of liquefied gases onto water
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
50
Explosion validation: large-scale

GexCon has simulated around 100 large-scale experiments:
23 BFETS Phase 2 (confinement, congestion, gas conc., ignition point, deluge)

40+ HSE Phase 3A (ignition point, congestion, low conf., deluge & repeatability)
30 Phase 3B (dispersion+explosion & partial fills & reference tests)
Indirect 98-JIP (ventilation/dispersion), comparisons done by consortium member
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
25
51
Explosions in realistic clouds (BFETS: Phase 3B)

Advantica, GexCon and Shell Global Solutions cooperated on
multisponsor project with wide support from 10 major oil companies
Statoil/Hydro/TFE/Shell/Talisman/BP/ExxonMobil/Enterprise/Marathon/HSE
More than 100 GexCon tests

20 dispersion & explosion tests full scale
www.gexcon.com
Partial fills
Structural response + gas reactivity
GexCon AS
52
Comparison with experimental data

1000 transient concentration profiles available
Accumulated values presented here: FLAMMABLE VOLUME
Observed
Simulated
rt.FUEL file
dispersion sim ulation : Flam m ble volum e

2500
Volume (m^3)
2000
1500
1000
500
www.gexcon.com
20
19
18
18 : 1m grid
17
16
16 : 1m grid
15
14
14 : 1m grid
13
12
11
10
9 : 1m grid
8 : 1m grid
GexCon AS
26
53
FLACS: advantages & challenges

Realistic accident scenarios (probabilistic approach)
All equipment details are taken into account
Can be used for explosion analysis and design
(structural response)
Accurate answers
Requires detailed geometry model (but no problem
when CAD available)
Approximations for turbulence and combustion
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
54
FLACS can be used to

limit consequences
Local explosion effects can be accounted for
(structural response)
Layout optimization can be performed
Mitigation measures can be investigated
FLACS has often been used to explain
past accidents
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
27
55
Thank you very much for your

attention!!
kees@gexcon.com
www.gexcon.com
GexCon AS
28

Definition of On-Site and Off-Site Explosion Loading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Definition of On-Site and Off-Site Explosion Loading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Total Raffinage Chemie Explosion Loading and Response Seminar: 26 September 2012, Brussels

Definition of explosion loading

Pressure affects in general

buildings / big objects where a

Far field blast prediction methods

Examples of far field blast prediction methods

Initial blast strength (estimate)

VBR = Volume Blockage Ratio

Initial blast strength (verification)

Generation of more than one pressure wave (in case of

Guidance with respect to separation

Example: Multi-Energy method

Baker-Strehlow-Tang blast curves

Baker-Strehlow-Tang flame speed table

VCEs in large obstructed areas

One shall therefore be

Example: Directional blast loading. Effect of

Example: Directional blast loading. Effect

Why use CFD?

Why use CFD?

Why use CFD?

Effect of facility geometry on flow

Release in open and obstructed areas

Explosions: effect of obstacle orientation

Explosions: effect of obstacle orientation

Can explosion loads in this environment be

CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)

CFD is the tool to combine knowledge

Flow solver: models based on

1mm droplets break-up into

CFD models for prediction of explosion

Validation is of paramount importance

CFD Equations (FLACS)

Sub-Grid Modelling (FLACS)

Development and validation of

Combustion Modeling (FLACS)

Geometry modeling alternatives

FLACS takes into account congestion effects

Geometry handling (FLACS)

Pressure loads on far field targets

FLACS takes into account

Explosion analysis of liquefaction plant

Far field loads

VCE prediction using FLACS

CFD includes effects neglected by

Verification & Validation

GexCon performing wind measurements offshore

Explosion validation: large-scale

23 BFETS Phase 2 (confinement, congestion, gas conc., ignition point, deluge)

Explosions in realistic clouds (BFETS: Phase 3B)

More than 100 GexCon tests

Comparison with experimental data

dispersion sim ulation : Flam m ble volum e

FLACS: advantages & challenges

FLACS can be used to

Thank you very much for your

You might also like