Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Phast Calculation 01 PDF
Phast Calculation 01 PDF
**
Corresponding author address: Henk W.M. Witlox, DNV Software, Palace House, 3 Cathedral Street, London SE1 9DE, UK, e-mail:
henk.witlox@dnv.com
2
against experimental data will show how closely expansion from the initial storage conditions to the
the mathematical model agrees with the orifice conditions, as well as the subsequent expansion
experimental results. This provides a justification from orifice conditions to atmospheric conditions. For
for the simplified assumptions made to derive the superheated liquid releases, liquid break-up into
mathematical model. droplets occurs along the expansion zone. It is typically
assumed that the length of the expansion zone is very
3. Sensitivity analysis. This involves carrying out a small with negligible air entrainment.
large number of input parameter variations (e.g.
hole diameter, ambient temperature, etc.) for a expansion zone
number of base cases (e.g. continuous vertical
methane jet release, instantaneous ground-level
propane un-pressurised release, etc.). Its purpose pipe
is to ensure overall robustness of the code, and to
vessel
understand the effect of parameter variations on (stagnation)
the model predictions. flow
flashing two-phase
discharge from vessel vapour-plume explosion or
centre-line flash fire
jet
fire
SUBSTRATE
point of Figure 2. Expansion from stagnation to
rainout pool
orifice and from orifice to ambient
Figure 1. Continuous two-phase release of conditions
flammable material with rainout
Key output data of the discharge model are flow rate,
This paper includes a brief overview of the “verification” orifice data [velocity, liquid fraction] and post-expansion
and “validation” of consequence models in the hazard data [velocity, liquid fraction, initial droplet size
assessment package Phast and the risk analysis (distribution)]. The post-expansion data are the starting
package Phast Risk (formerly known as SAFETI). The point (“source term”) of the subsequent dispersion
Phast results presented in this paper correspond to calculations.
Phast version 6.53. These are expected to be very
close or identical to results for the latest version 6.54. In the literature numerous discharge models can be
found. Key literature including description of discharge
A limited number of key scenarios are considered, while models and experimental data include Perry’s
reference is made to key papers for details. Reference handbook (Perry et al., 1999), the DIERS project
is made to the literature for the availability of manual (Fisher et al., 1992), CCPS QRA guidelines
experimental data. (CCPS, 2000), Sections 15.1-15.9 in Lees (Lees, 1996),
and Chapter 2 in the TNO Yellow Book (TNO, 1997). The
Sections 2, 3 and 4 describe the verification and author did not find an up-to-date published overview of
validation for discharge modelling, dispersion and pool key experiments (benchmark tests for discharge
modelling, and flammable effects modelling, models; input data and experimental results), in
respectively. The experimental results quoted in the conjunction with a systematic evaluation of discharge
current paper are independent of the empirical basis of models.
the model for the discharge, dispersion and pool
models. The flammable models in Phast are largely Key verification tests include comparison of the model
semi-empirical models available in the public domain, against well-established analytical flow-rate equations
and some degree of fitting may have been conducted for incompressible liquid (Bernoulli equation) and ideal
against experimental data. gases. In addition verification could be considered
between different discharge models and verification
against results from process simulators (e.g. HYSIS or
2. DISCHARGE PROII).
from vessels and/or short pipes including amongst Sections 15.11-15.54 in Lees (Lees, 1996), and the
others the above cases. Figure 3 illustrates the CCPS dispersion guidelines (CCPS, 1996). Key
comparison for the Phast 6.53 model against sub- experiments (benchmark tests for dispersion; input data
cooled water jets. The Phast long pipeline model has and experimental results) have been stored in the MDA
been validated for propane two-phase releases [Isle of database by Hanna et al. (1993) in conjunction with
Grain experiments (Cowley and Tam, 1988; Webber et comparison and validation of a wide range of models.
al., 1999)]. Likewise data are stored in the REDIPHEM database
partly as part of the EU project SMEDIS (Daish et al.,
Detailed validation of droplet modelling for two-phase 1999). The SMEDIS project has also produced a
releases was carried out by Witlox et al. (2010) using a protocol for evaluating heavy gas dispersion models,
range of droplet-size correlations accounting for both which has also recently been proposed for application
mechanical and flashing break-up of the droplets. This to LNG (Ivings et al., 2007).
includes validation of initial droplet size for small-scale
experiments by Cardiff University (water, cyclohexane, Model verification and validation for dispersion models
butane and propane), the EU STEP experiments is illustrated below for the Phast dispersion model UDM
(flashing propane jets), experiments by the Belgium (Witlox and Holt, 1999, 2007). This is an integral model,
Von Karman Institute (flashing R134-A jets), and which can account for all the above type of releases
experiments carried out in France by Ecole des Mines except for effects of obstacles and non-flat terrain. The
and INERIS (water and butane). It also includes verification and validation for the UDM can be
validation of the rainout against the CCPS experiments summarised as follows [see Witlox and Holt (2007) for
(flashing jets of water, CFC-11, chlorine, cyclohexane, full details and a detailed list of references]:
monomethylamine).
1. Jet and near-field passive dispersion. For an
1.8 elevated horizontal continuous jet (of air), the UDM
1.6
PHAST6.53-Sozzi&Sutherland
numerical results are shown to be identical to the
Ratio of predicted to observed flowrate (-)
5. Thermodynamics. The UDM dispersion model simultaneously spreading and vaporising pools.
invokes the thermodynamics module while solving The above validation was carried out for both spills
the dispersion equations in the downwind direction. on water and land, and a wide range of materials
This module describes the mixing of the released was included [LNG, propane, butane, pentane,
component with moist air, and may take into hexane, cyclo-hexane, toluene, ammonia, nitrogen,
account water-vapour and heat transfer from the water, Freon-11)].
substrate to the cloud. The module calculates the
phase distribution [component (vapour, liquid), 100
The overall UDM model was also recently verified by validated against the Montoir LNG tests (Nedelka et al.,
means of comparison against other models for three US 1990) and hexane tests (Lois and Swithenbank, 1979).
chlorine accidents involving elevated two-phase
WIND
chlorine jet releases. This is illustrated by Figure 5 for
the case of the Graniteville accident; see Hanna et al.
(2007) for full details.
1,000,000
100,000
H
Cl2 Concentration (ppmv)
10,000 TRACE
PHAST
θ
SCIPUFF
SLAB
HGSYSTEM
1,000 ALOHA
100
D
10
WIND
0.1 1 10
x (km)
Z
Figure 5. UDM (PHAST) verification against
other models for Graniteville
Chlorine accident
W2
4. FLAMMABLE EFFECTS
RL
This section deals with the verification and validation of α
flammable effect models (fireballs, pool fires, jet fires W1 Lb
and explosions, vapour cloud fires). Furthermore the
most-established empirical models are considered only. b
Key literature including description of these models and
θj
experimental data include Chapters 5-6 of the TNO
yellow book (TNO, 1997), Sections 16-17 in Lees X
(1996) and the CCPS guidelines (CCPS, 1994).
Fireballs, jet fires and pool fires Figure 6. Geometry for pool fire (tilted
cylinder) and jet fire (cone)
Empirical models for these fires include empirical
correlations describing the fire geometry (most
commonly a sphere for a fireball, a tilted cylinder for
pool fire, and a cone for the jet fire) and the surface
emissive power (radiation per unit of area emitted from 8
0% deviation
the fire surface area); see Figure 6. 7 -15% deviation
2 15% deviation
The radiation intensity (W/m ) for a observer with given
Predicted heat flux (kW/m2)
6 -40% deviation
position and orientation is set as the product of the 40% deviation
5
surface emissive power and the view factor. The view Johnson (1992)
6.00E+04
Overpressure (Pa)
Test Average
been verified against model predictions by Johnson 3.00E+04
Test Maximum
BSEX Results
(Johnson et al., 1994) in the case of the horizontal MULT Results
35 1.00E+04
0% deviation
-15% deviation
30
15% deviation
0.00E+00
Predicted heat flux (kW/m2)
0 REFERENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25
Measured heat flux (kW/m2)
Bennett, J. F., Cowley, L. T., Davenport, J. N., and
Figure 8. Predicted against measured Rowson, J. J., 1991, “Large scale natural gas and LPG
incident radiation at different jet fires - final report to the CEC”, TNER 91.022
observer positions and
orientations using the Phast 6.53 Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American
and Johnson jet fire models Institute of Chemical Engineers (CCPS), 1994,
“Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor
Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires and Bleves”, American
Explosion Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York
Fitzgerald (2001) includes a detailed comparison of the CCPS, 1996, “Guidelines for use of vapor cloud
TNO multi-energy (1988), Baker-Strehlow (1999) and dispersion models”, Second Edition, CCPS, New York
CAM models (1999). This includes information of the
latest versions of these models and comparison against CCPS, 2000, “Guidelines for chemical process
experimental data (EMERGE experiments by TNO quantitative risk analysis”, Second Edition, CCPS, New
(EMERGE, 1998) and BFETS experiments by SCI York, Section 2.1.1 – discharge rate models
(Selby and Burgan, 1998)). Clear conclusions are
provided indicating under which conditions which model Chamberlain, G.A., 1987, “Developments in design
is best on overpressure prediction. He states that the methods for predicting thermal radiation from flares”,
overpressure predictions of the CAM and multi-energy Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 65: 299-309
models were found to be more accurate than the Baker-
Strehlow model. CAM was found to be the most Cowley, L.T. and Tam, V.H.Y., 1988, "Consequences of
complex method to use. The Baker-Strehlow model pressurised LPG releases: the Isle of Grain full scale
predictions was quoted to have a high degree of experiments", GASTECH 88, 13th International
confidence due to the lack of assumptions made in the LNG/LPG Conference, Kuala Lumpur
comparisons and it is quoted to be the easiest of the
three methods to apply. Daish, N.C, Britter, R.E., Linden, P.F., Jagger, S.F. and
Carissimo, B., 1999, “SMEDIS: Scientific Model
The latest available versions of the multi-energy Evaluation Techniques Applied to Dense Gas
(MULT) and Baker-Strehlow (BSEX) models have been Dispersion models in complex situations”., Int. Conf.
implemented into Phast. They have been validated and workshop on modelling the consequences of
against the above EMERGE and BFETS experiments; accidental releases of hazardous materials, San
see Figure 9 for the predictions of overpressure (as Francisco, California, CCPS, New York, 345-372
function of distance from the edge of the congestion
zone) for the case of the EMERGE 6 propane EMERGE, 1998, “Extended Modelling and
experiment (medium-scale 3D medium-congestion). Experimental Research into Gas Explosions”, Final
Summary Report for the project EMERGE, CEC
Contract EV5V-CT93-0274
7
Fisher, H.G., Forrest, H.S., Grossel, S.S., Huff, J.E., Nice, 17-20 October 1989, Published by Institute of Gas
Muller, A.R., Noronha, J.A., Shaw, D.A., and Tilley, technology, Chicago, 2-III-3: 1-23
B.J., 1992, “Emergency Relief System Design using
DIERS technology”, DIERS project manual, ISBN No. Perry, R.H, Green, D.W. and Maloney, J.D., (eds.),
0-8169-0568-1, Pub. No. X-123, AICHE, New York 1999, “Perry Chemicals Engineering Handbook”, 7th
Edition, McGrawhill, Section 26 “Process safety”
Fitzgerald, G., 2001, ‘A comparison of Simple Vapor
Cloud Explosion Prediction Methodologies”, Second Petersen, R.L. and Ratcliff, M.A., 1988, “Effect of
Annual Symposium, Mary Kay O’Connor Process homogeneous and heterogeneous surface roughness
Safety Center, “Beyond Regulatory Compliance: on HTAG dispersion”, CPP Incorporated, Colorado.
Making Safety Second Nature”, Reed Arena, Texas Contract for API, Draft Report CPP-87-0417
A&M University, College Station, Texas
Schotte, W., 1987, “Fog formation of hydrogen fluoride
Hanna, S.R., Chang, J.C. and Strimaitis, D.G., 1993, in air”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 26: 300-306; see also
“Hazardous gas model evaluation with field Schotte, W., “Thermodynamic model for HF formation”,
observations”, Atm. Env., 27a: 2265-2285 31 August 1988, Letter from Schotte to Soczek, E.I. Du
Pont de Nemours & Company, Du Pont Experimental
Hanna, S., Dharmavaram, S., Zhang, J., Sykes, I., Station, Engineering Department, Wilmington, Delawere
Witlox, H. W. M., Khajehnajafi, S. and Koslan, K., 2007, 19898
“Comparison of six widely-used dense gas dispersion
models for three actual chlorine railcar accidents”, Selby, C.A., and Burgan, B.A., 1998, “Blast and fire
Proceedings of 29th NATO/SPS International Technical engineering for topside structures - phase 2: final
Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and its Application, summary report”, SCI Publication No. 253, Steel
24 - 28 September 2007, Aveiro, Portugal Construction Institute, UK
Ivings, M.J., Jagger, S.F., Lea, C.J. and Webber, D.M., Sozzi, G. L. and Sutherland, W. A., 1975, “Critical flow
2007, “Evaluating vapor dispersion models for safety of saturated and sub-cooled water at high pressure”,
analysis of LNG facilities”, Contract by HSL for Fire General Electric Co. Report No. NEDO-13418
Protection Research Foundation, Quincy,
Massachusetts TNO, 1997, “Methods for the calculation of physical
effects” (TNO Yellow Book), CPR14E, SDU, The Hague
Johnson, A.D., 1992, “A model for predicting thermal
radiation hazards from large-scale LNG pool fires”, Uchida, H. and Narai, H., 1966, “Discharge of saturated
IChemE Symp. Series, 130: 507-524 water through pipes and orifices”, Proceedings 3day
International Heat Transfer Conference, ASME,
Johnson, A.D., Brightwell, H.M., and Carsley, A.J., Chicago, 5: 1-12
1994, “A model for predicting the thermal radiation
hazard from large scale horizontally released natural Webber, D.M., Fanneløp, T.K. and Witlox, H.W.M.,
gas jet fires”, Trans. IChemE., 72B:157-166 1999, Source terms for two-phase flow in long pipelines
following an accidental breach, International
Lees, F.P., 1996, “Loss Prevention in the process Conference and Workshop on Modelling the
industries: hazard identification, assessment and Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous
control”, Second Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, Materials, CCPS, San Francisco, California, September
Oxford 28 – October 1, 145-168
Lois, E., and Swithenbank, J., 1979, “Fire hazards in oil Witlox, H.W.M. and Holt, A., 1999, “A unified model for
tank arrays in a wind”, 17th Symposium (Int.) on jet, heavy and passive dispersion including droplet
Combustion, Leeds, Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, rainout and re-evaporation”, International Conference
PA, 1087-1098 and Workshop on Modelling the Consequences of
Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials, CCPS,
Martinsen, W.E. and Marx, J.D., 1999, “An improved San Francisco, California, September 28 – October 1,
model for the prediction of radiant heat from fireballs”, 315-344
International Conference and Workshop on Modelling
the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Witlox, H.W.M., Harper, M., Topalis, P. and Wilkinson,
Hazardous Materials, CCPS, San Francisco, California, S., 2006, “Modelling the consequence of hazardous
September 28 – October 1, 605-621 multi-component two-phase releases to the
atmosphere”, Hazards XIX Conference, Manchester,
McQuaid, J., 1976, “Some experiments on the structure 250-265
of stably stratified shear flows”, Technical Paper P21,
Safety in Mines Research Establishment, Sheffield, UK Witlox, H.W.M., Harper, M., Oke, A. (DNV Software),
Bowen, P.J., Kay, P. (Cardiff University), Jamois, D.,
Nedelka, D., Moorhouse, J., and Tucker, R. F., 1990, and Proust, C. (INERIS), “Two-phase jet releases and
“The Montoir 35m diameter LNG pool fire experiments”, droplet dispersion: scaled and large-scale experiments,
th
Proc. 9 Intl. Cong and Exposition on LNG, LNG9, droplet-size correlation development and model
8
th
validation”, Paper 6.3, 6 AMS conference on
applications of air pollution meteorology, Atlanta, USA,
17-21 January 2010