Gas explosion experiments in I:33 and 1:5

scale offshore separator and compressor

modules using stoichiometric homogeneous
fuel/air clouds

B. H. Hjertager, K. Fuhre and M. Bjsrkhaug

Chr. Michelsen Institute, Department of Science and Technology N-5036 Fantoft,
Bergen, Norway

An experimental investigation of flame and pressure development inside scaled-down versions of

realistic offshore modules is reported. Two different scales, 1:33 and 1:5 and two different internal
layouts, separator and compressor were tested. The effects of pressure build-up in homogeneous,
stoichiometric methane/air or propane/air clouds ignited at various positions inside the modules
were investigated. In addition, the size and distribution of the vent area of the modules were varied.
The length, width and height of the 1:5 scale module were 8 m, 2.5 m and 2.5 m, respectively. The
highest peak pressure maesured in these tests was found in the 1:5 scale separator module using
propane/air ignited centrally at the upper deck and venting through louvres at either end. The
smallest pressures, lo-20 mbar were found for the cases with the largest vent area. Generally,
pressures in 1:5 scale were 5-10 times larger than in 1:33 scale. It was also found that pressures in
the separator module were somewhat higher than in the compressor module. This could be
explained by the fact that the separator module had higher volume blockage of equipment than the
compressor module. No significant reduction in pressure build-up was found when ignition was
moved from the central position of the module end towards the open ends. The present results are
compared with other data from the tube, the radial channel and the 3-D corner as well as data from
empty volume tests.

(Keywords: gas cloud: exploslon: pressure burstj

Accidental gas explosions occuring on offshore plat- 0 tube with sharp edged rings;
forms are characterized by propagation in complex 0 radial geometries with sharp and rounded obstacles;
geometries. It is well known that a strong coupling exists l spherical geometries with various volume blockage
between the explosion and the geometry in which it ratios
propagates. Very often it is not possible, in a numerical
The experimental data collected in simplified situations
model, to take account of every geometrical detail in an
played a decisive role in optimizing the various parts of
exact manner. The reason for this is the vast amount of
the gas explosion model. It remains, however, to check
numerical grid points that would be required to model
whether the model is capable of reproducing explosion
complex geometries. An alternative method has been
behaviour in realistic offshore modules ‘and for this
proposed by Hjertager t to describe the geometry and to
purpose good experimental data are needed.
model the resultant influence on the explosion. The
Previous experimental data in realistic offshore
method uses the porosity and distributed resistance
modules are scarce. Very often it has been usual to do
concept to take account of explosion propagation in
experimental investigations in empty modules, and to
complex geometries. The distributed resistance func-
use the vent area and ignition point position as para-
tions are dependent on bulk parameters such as obstacle
meters in the studies’. The empty volume assumption
dimensions and orientation, as well as the specific
has been shown to be totally inadequate for modules
wetted area of the obstacles per unit volume of the area
containing process equipment 3 - ‘. It is therefore of the
containing complex geometries.
utmost importance to collect experimental data in
This model has been developed and validated based
modules containing various realistic process equipment.
on experiments carried out in idealized geometries e.g.:
The present paper gives the results of experimental
investigations carried out in offshore modules in scale
Received II Augusl 1988 1:33 as well as 15 of realistic compressor and separator
0950-4230/88/040197-1 Os3.00
0 1988 Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd
J. Loss Rev. Process lnd., 1988, Vol 1, October 197
Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor modules: 6. H. Hjertager et al.

modules. The parameters chosen to be varied in the cylindrical vessels, four on the upper deck (UD) and three
studies included: on the lower deck (LD), aligned along the module length.
In addition the module also contains a lot of smaller
l gas type (i.e. methane or propane);
pipes. The compressor module is characterized by two
l size and location of vent area;
compressor trams and two large box shaped rooms
l ignition position
located on the upper deck (UD) and four box shaped and
The clouds inside the modules were stoichiometric, and two cylindrical objects on the lower deck. Figures 3 and 4
covered the whole of the free space. The experimental give the overview of the large scale version (scale 1:5) of
tests in the 1:5 scale modules were performed at the test the separator and compressor modules with length 8 m,
site at Sund on the island of Sotra, while the 1:33 scale width and height of 2.5 m, that were installed at the
tests were carried out in the laboratory at CMI. test site on Sotra. For easy reference we have defined all
sides of the module. In Figures 3 and 4, we designate the
left end as south and right end as north. The nearest wall
is designated front wall and the opposite is designated rear
Experimental arrangement
wall, and finally the sides on the north and south are
designated north or south ends of the module. Therefore,
Module geometries
Figures I, 3 and 4 are showing the front side whereas
When the separator and the compressor module layouts Figure 2 is showing the rear side of the modules.
had been chosen, a 1:33 scale model was made, with In addition to the two layouts given above, the
length 1.25 m, width 0.35 m and height 0.33 m, of a partially filled (P-filled) M24 module (only 1:33 scale
separation module. In addition a 1:33 scale model, with experiments) and the empty module without internal
length 1.25 m, width 0.45 m and height 0.35 m, of a process equipment were tested. The volume blockage
compression module was subsequently fabricated. ratios (VBR) of obstacles inside three of the various
Figures I and 2 give a view of the two modules, the M25 layouts are given in Table I.
separator module and the M24 compressor module,
respectively. These figures give a good impression of the Vent arrangements
internal layout of equipment and pipes. The separator The venting of gas explosions is characterized by the
module given in Figure I is characterized by seven large size, layout and location of the vent area. The size of a

Figure 1 Front view of the 1:33 scale separator module, M25 Figure 3 Front view of the 1:5 scale separation module, M25

Figure 2 Rear view of the 1:33 scale compressor module, M24 Figure 4 Front view of the 1:5 scale compressor module, M24

198 J. Loss Rev. Process lnd., 1988, Vat 1, October

 Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor modules: 6. H. Hjertager et al.

Table 1 Volume blockage ratios IVBR) of the modules

Compressor Compressor Separator

module module module
M24/Filled MZ4/Partly filled M25

Upper deck,
VBR l-1 0.15 0.03 0.3
Lower deck,
VBR (-1 0.1 0.1 0.3
Total module,
VBR (-1 0.13 0.065 0.3

Figure 7 Photograph of the 1:5 scale module geometry with

louvres on three sides

vent is very often given by the vent parameter which is a

non-dimensional parameter calculated as A,/ V 2’3,
where A, is the vent area size in m 2 and Vis the volume
of the module in m 3.
For the small-scale tests the following four vent
arrangments were tested:
1) Venting through the two open ends (base case),
A,/ V 2’3 = 0.92
2) Venting through louvres at the two ends,
A,/ V 2’3 = 0.46
3) In addition to 1) also venting through the open
front wall (front venting, FV), A,/ V2’3 = 2.85
4) In addition to 1) also venting through the roof (top
venting, TV), A,/ V 2’3 = 2.85
Figure 5 gives the layout and relevant data for the six
vent arrangment that were used for the 1:5 scale
experiments. Figures 6 and 7 give the details of the
louvres and overview of the case with venting through
TOP three walls, respectively.
Rear wall
Half of
front wall Gas cloud preparation and ignition
Bottom Preparation of the gas mixture was accomplished by
subjecting the modules to a flowing mixture of either
methane in air (9.6 vol 070)or propane in air (4.2 vol 070)
for the 1:5 scale tests, whereas only methane in air was
used for the 1:33 scale tests. A thin plastic 6lm covered the
Figure 5 Schematic diagram showing the different vent arrange open sides of the modules. The plastic film was loosely
ments tested on the 1:5 scale module geometry
attached to the modules and removed by the explosion
itself. The gas in air was monitored at the inlet and at one
end (1:33 scale) or four (1:5 scale) positions in the
modules, by using an infrared gas analyser (Binos,
Leybold, Heraeus). Filling continued until the fuel
concentration at the inlet and outlet(s) was within 0.1 % of
the desired concentration. Ignition was normally located
either centrally at upper or lower deck positions, or close
to the north end at upper or lower deck positions. Ignition
was usually obtained by an electrically fired match head
(ICI Ce Mg). In some cases a weaker spark ignition was
used.

Instrumentation
Figure 6 Schematic diagram showing the dimensions of the Synchronization of the ignition, resetting and calibra-
louvres tion of pressure transducers were controlled by a 10

J. Loss Prev. Process lnd., 1988, Vol 1, October 199

 Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor moduies: B. H. Hjertager et al.

DIMNSIONS SMALL-SCALE (1%) channel programmed timer (UP timer, Xanadu Con-
LENGTH = I.25m HEIGHT
=Cl.35
m trols). The signals were recorded on a 14 channel analog
tape recorder (PR 2230, Ampex Corporation). After
WIDTH (M24) = 0.45 m WIDTH (MB) = 0.35 m
each test, the records were displayed with a u.v.-
FRONT VIEW
recorder (Autograph 8, Bryans). Two types of diag-
nostic probes were used to monitor the explosion. The
7 h > 4 ?? z 1
flame position inside the modules was recorded by
n P1

I----------------------------------=-’---
UPPer deck (UD) placing ionization gaps centrally along the upper deck
and along the lower deck as shown in Figure 8 for the
1:33 scale tests and in Figure 9 for the 1:5 scale tests.
n P2
Lower deck (LD) ebl.2 The pressure time histories inside the modules were
SOUTH Nr NDRTH monitored either at two positions (1:33 scale) or at six
END V,EW positions (1:s scale) as shown in Figures 8 and 9. In the
large-scale (1:5) tests, the outside blast wave was moni-
tranr*ucer* I I
c
Pressure (PI -PZ) . IG 1-7
I . tored by a transducer placed 10 m from the south end of
PI the module. In some of the tests, high speed movie
P1.r =Om Uxercleck I e Ian. ,
recordings were made through a transparent front wall in
the module.

Results and discussion

lonirahn gaps (,C 1-14).
x, =O.b
m, q=o.t4
m. xyo.2m. x*=0tn. x5:-0.2 m. x6=0.* m
Tests in 1:33 scale modules
x,=-O.6 m, x8=-0.6 m. x9=-0.4 m. ~~~‘-0.2 m. x, ,=-o m. x,~=-o.z m
x,5.-0.4 m. x,4:-0.6 m
The results from the 1:33 scale separator and com-
Ignition positions (,~+a. L-2) @
pressor module methane/air tests are given as bar charts
,Qn. 1.X =om OnUpperdeck. Ign.2.r =Om c”,Lower.,eck in Figure 10 and II. The peak pressure measured was
Figure 8 Schematic diagram showing the 1:33 scale module approximately 400 mbar, and this was found for the
geometry with pressure transducer, ionization gap and ignition M25 separator module with venting through louvres and
locations
ignited centrally at the lower deck (Figure IO). This
DlMENSIONS LARGE-SCAIL (1:s)
pressure was lowered to approximately 200 mbar with-
out louvres at the ends and further lowered to approxi-
LENGTH = B m WIDTH = 2.5 m HElCHT = 2.1 m
mately 30 mbar when front (FV) or top venting (TV)
FRONT V,EW
were introduced.
PJ P2 PI The peak pressure measured in the M24 compressor
I
module was smaller compared with the M25 module and
amounted to approximately 70 mbar, with central igni-
tion at the upper deck (Figure II). The explosions in
Upper dsck (LID)
_.........__________-----_-______-~_,~~___________________________ the empty M25 module with smooth walls produced a
24 22 2_0 ,_9 1-4 ,I pressure of about 15 mbar. When the steel frame struc-
.< ture was installed, the explosion pressure increased to
PI
Lower deck (LD) * ,gn. 2
about 20 mbar. Figure II shows that there is some
SOUTH +x NORTH
increase in pressure with the two rooms in place (geo-
EN0 VIEW

a) Pressure transdw;ers (PI-P7).

PI = 3.9 In. PZ IO m. P, I - 5.9 m

P4 = 3.9 “I. P5 = 0 m. P6 = - 5.9 m

P7 = 10 m from the exit of the module

1 ‘= ‘:I;. 2.3 tP4-P6

FRONT REAR

b) lonizatbn gaps (,C 1-24) .

x,:4.0 m. X2’3.25 In. x3=2.5 In. x4=,.75 m. xyL.0 In. x6=0.25 m
x7=-0.25 tn. xg=-1.0 m. x9=-1.7s m. x,0=-2.5 In. x,,=-J.ZSnl. x,2=-4.0 m
x,5=4.0 In. x,4=3.2) m, x,5=2.5 m. x,6=1.7S m. x,7=1.0 m. x,8=0.25 m
x,9=-0.25m. x20=-,.0 m. x2,.-,.75m. x22’-2.5 m. x*3-1.25m. x24=-4.0 m

C) lgnitior positions (Ign. l-3) e

,gn.,.x corn. kJn.2.x corn. ,gn.J.X .4m

Figure 9 Schematic diagram showing the 1:5 scale module geo- Figure 10 Peak pressure as function of various geometrical
metry with pressure transducer, ionization gap and ignition loca- layouts of the 1:X3 scale M25 separator module. Methane/air
tions clouds

200 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1988, Vol 7, October

 Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor modules: t?. H. Hjertager et al.

CENTRAL IGNITION

IGNITION
Bs CmlRur
~CEhl%lB
OENOLD

Figure 11 Peak pressure as function of various geometrical

layouts of the 1:33 scale M25 compressor module. Methane/air
clouds

metry designated Filled) as compared with the cases

without the two rooms (geometry designated P-Filled).
Figures IO and II show that there are highest
pressures for the cases with central ignition at the lower
deck. It is also worth noting that when the ignition is
moved to the ends, the pressure is not generally lowered.
In fact, Figure 10 shows that the pressure is larger when
ignited between the central and end position (ignition
designated l/4 End LD) as compared with central 1 4
ignition. VENT P:RAMETER, ?A/““’
Figure 12 Peak pressure as function of vent parameter for the
Tests in I:5 scale modules centrally ignited IUD) explosions in the 1:5 scale M25 separator
module

General. The peak pressure in the tests varied from CENTRAL IGNITION
1.9 bar for the most confined explosion using pro-
pane/air and all the way down to about 5 mbar for the
empty module ignited at the open end.

Vent arrangement. Figures 12 and 13 give the peak

pressures in the M25 separator module and the M24
compressor module as function of the vent parameter
A,/ V 2’3. Ignition position in the tests shown in these
figures was at the centre on the upper deck. Also shown
in Figures 12 and 13 are the 1:33 scale data, which were
presented previously. The peak pressure decreases with
increasing vent area. Hence in Figure 12, the pressure
amounts to 1.9 bar for a vent parameter equal to 0.46
and decreases to about 25 mbar for a vent parameter of
4.8.
Similar trends are seen in Figure I3 for the com-
pressor module. The propane/air tests produced about
twice as high pressures as the methane/air tests, and this
is consistent with previous tests in other geometries 5 - ‘.
The 1:33 scale explosion data give smaller pressure
build-up than the 1:5 scale tests. For the most confined
cases, the pressures in the 1:5 scale are approximately 5
and 10 times higher than the 1:33 scale separator and
compressor module tests, respectively. This difference is
diminished when the vent area is increased, and for the r
t 4
M25 module in Figure 12 the curves coincide when the
VENT P:RAMETER, 5,/“z’3
vent parameter is about 3.0.
Figure 13 Peak pressure as function of vent parameter for the
The importance of internal obstructions in the centrally ignited (UD) explosions in the 1:5 scale M24 compressor
modules are also demonstrated in Figures I2 and 13. module

J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1988, Vol 1, October 201

Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor modules: B. H. Hjertager et al.

For a vent parameter equal 0.92, tests were done with

and without internal equipment. The result show that IGN. POS. / A/V"=
the pressure is between 4-10 times lower when the UPPER DECK / 0.46 L
equipment is removed. LOWER
_-- DECK_/ ---
0.46 L
If we compare the pressure build-up in the M25 UPPERDECK / 0.92
separator module in Figure 12 with the pressure build- LOWERDECKJ ---
__- 0.92
up in the M24 compressor module in Figure 13, we find
that the former produces somewhat larger pressure.
This is the same result both for the 1:5 and 1:33 scale
tests. The reason for this difference is probably due to
the fact that the volume blockage ratio for the separator
module is somewhat larger than the compressor
module, VBR = 0.3 and VBR = 0.13, respectively.
Another feature to note is the influence of distribu-
tion of a vent area. In Figures 12 and 13, cases with
louvres on three sides are given. It can be seen that the
pressure points fall below the curves. This indicates a
more favourable distribution of the vent area. A vent
area is most efficient if it can be evenly distributed over
the longest side (in this case the front wall). This has
also been noted in the tests performed in the 10 m radial
vessel 5.

Ignition location and strength. The tests with three

louvred walls in Figures 12 and 13 were done with
ignition located centrally on the upper deck. Some tests -
0
were done in this geometrical layout by moving the IGNITION &ON FR& CENTRAL P&. ( m )
ignition source around. The results are summarized in Figure 14 Peak pressure as function of ignition position given as
Table 2, which shows that the pressure may increase distance from centre position. A distance of 4 m indicates exit of
from 100 mbaro when ignition is in the centre and up to north end. M25 separator module. Methane/air clouds

260mbaro when the ignition is moved further away

from the louvred wall. IGN. POS. / A/V2’3
Ignition by a match head was the normal mode of 0 UPPERDECK / 0.46 L
ignition. However, some tests were carried out using a LOWERDECK_/
0 --- 0.46 L
--_
spark as ignition source. Table 3 gives the data from these n UPPER DECK / 0.92
tests. As can be seen from Table 3, the match head ignited 0 LOWER DECK1 0.92
--- ---

Table 2 M25-methane/air tests, 3 louvred walls

Ignition position Peak pressure [mbarol

UD/centre 100
(as given in Fig. 121
UD/close to rear wall 153
LD/close to rear wall 260

Table 3 Reproducibility and influence of ignition strength in the

compressor module tests

Test no. Fuel Measured peak pressure [mbarol

Match head ignition Spark ignition

85142 Methane/air 200

,, 300 255
85144
I,

1
86143 265 I
I,
86147 230
,I
86/48 210
,I 223
86149 222
I, 0
86157 230 0
85/43 Propane/air 310
,I 340 lGNw0~ &ATION FR& CENTRAL psOs.. ( m )
85164 370 I
I, Figure 15 Peak pressure as function of ignition position given as
86150 366
,I 389
86/56 412 1 distance from the centre position. A distance of 4 m indicates exit
of north end. M25 compressor module. Methane/air clouds.

202 J. Loss Prev. Process lnd., 1988, Vol 7, October

 Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor modules: B. H. Hjertager et al.

Figure 16 High-speed movie recordings of flame propagation in the 1:5 scale compressor module. a, Test No. 88 (19861. Ignition: centre
on upper deck. Framing rate: 125 frames per sec. Av/V lr3 = 0.92. Propane/air. b, Test No. 87 (1986). Ignition: centre on lower deck.
Framing rate: 100 frames per sec. A& 2’3 = 0 92. Propane/air. c, Test No. 97 (1986). Ignition: on lower deck at north end. Framing rate:
25 frames per sec. A,/V2’3 = 0.92. Propane/air

J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1988, Vol 1, October 203

Gas explosion experiments used in offshore
explosions give very similar results as the spark
ignited explosions. The table also shows that there
is an acceptable degree of reproducibility from shot to
shot.
Figures 14 and IS show the influence of changing the
ignition position inside the separator and compressor
module. It is seen from these figures that the peak
pressure does not generally decrease as the ignition
point is moved towards the open north end. In fact,
Figure I4 shows an increase from about 750 mbar for
central ignition to 1300 mbar for end ignition. this is the
similar trend as was found in the 1:33 scale tests.
Figures 16 u-c show the detailed position of the
flame inside the M24 compressor module, as recorded
by high-speed camera through the transparent front
wall, for central ignition upper deck and lower deck and
north end ignition at the lower deck, respectively.
Figures Ida and b show that the flame initially starts
out as a hemisphere, but the shape is modified as the
flame interacts with the openings in the upper deck and
with the process equipment inside the module. These
two figures also show the acceleration of the flame as it
approaches the north and south ends. The flame acceler-
ation is further shown in Figure Idc, which shows an
end ignited case.
The flame only needs three frames to exit from the
south, once the flame has reached the middle of the
module. The corresponding flame speeds along the
upper and lower decks, given in Figure 17, showing the
heavy acceleration in the final part of the game propa-
gation through the module. The explanation for this
acceleration is probably due to the process equipment. At
the start of the flame propagation process, the lIame is
venting behind and very little flow velocity is generated in
front of the tlame. This continues until the venting and
flow behind the flame is made more difficult, due to the
increased resistance to flow caused by the obstructions.
Therefore, more of the expansion goes in the forward
-
800
II n Lower deck
0 wer -- deck
Figure 17 Flame speed versus distance along
204 J. Loss Prev. Process lnd., 1988, Voi
separator and compressor modules: 8. H. Hjertager et al.
direction, thus producing the turbulent environment that
is a prerequisite for flame acceleration. This tbune
acceleration of end ignited cases is not found when the
internal process equiment is taken out. In that situation
the peak pressure amounts to about 5 mbar and peak
flamespeedtoaboutSms_‘.
Further discussion
Figure 18 shows comparisons of the present pro-
pane/air tests in the M25 separator module, with other
data collected by the authors and others. DnV 2 has
performed a range of explosion tests in an empty 35 m 3
module geometry using the vent and ignition position as
parameters. Their cases with rear end ignition are shown
in Figure 18. It is noted that the vent parameter is much
smaller (0.05-0.2) than the smallest vent parameter
used in the present experiments (0.46). Because the DnV
module is empty, the peak pressure versus vent para-
meter is as expected far below the present data.
We have performed a series of experiments in a 50 m 3
tube3,4*6. Most of the tests in the tube have been
conducted using a planar ignition source at the closed
end of the tube. However, some selected tests using a
point source have also been performed and the result of
one case is shown in Figure 18. The vent parameter is
somewhat smaller than in the present tests, but the
pressure is much higher than in the module tests. In
fact, it seems that the tube data is a good extrapolation
from the module data. This is as expected since the tube
as the module, contains obstacles.
Also shown in Figure I8 is the data for the 10 m
radial vessel with variable top venting ‘. As we can see,
the case with the smallest vent parameter, i.e. the case
with solid top wall, gives a pressure build-up that
connects fairly well to the present module tests. How-
ever, when top venting is increased, the pressure reduc-
tion is much larger than in the present module tests.
This is due to the fact that the venting is evenly
the module for the case which is ignited at the open north end
I, October
 Gas explosion experiments used in offshore separator and compressor modules: 8. H. Hjertager et al.

peak pressure was 1.9 bar, for end venting of pro-

pane/air explosions through louvres (A,/ V 2’3 = 0.46).
The smallest pressure was about 10 mbar, for modules
with venting through all four walls (A”/ V”” = 4.8).
2. No significant lowering of explosion pressure was
found when the ignition was moved towards the open
end of the module, which had venting at either end.
3. The peak pressure in the 1:5 scale modules were
higher by factors of 5-10 for most cases when com-
pared with the 1:33 scale tests.
4. The explosion pressures in the separator modules
were somewhat higher than in the compressor module.
This is consistent with the higher volume blockage ratio
of the separator module.
5. For the case with evenly distributed vent area
(three louvred walls) the peak pressure amounted to
about 100 mbar for the centrally ignited case. When the
ignition source was moved further away from the vent,
the pressure increased with factors up to about 2.5.
6. The explosion data from the module tests form
excellent test data for the porosity/distributed model
included in the 3-D FLACS computer code.
7. Further studies in module geometries should
include the effect of fuel cloud inhomogeneity.

Acknowledgements
Figure 18 Peak pressure in various propane/air tests as function This work has been financially supported by BP Petrol-
of the vent parameter, A,/V2’3 eum Development Ltd. Norway, Elf Aquitaine Norge
A/S, Esso Norge A/S, Mobil Exploration Norway Inc.,
distributed and that ignition is very close to the top vent. Norsk Hydro and Statoil. The authors acknowledge the
Both these conditions favour a lowering of explosion technical support during the experiments of Mr H. G.
pressure as seen in Table 2 and form the result of the Thorsen and Mr A. Nilsen.
present case with three louvred walls (Figure 18).
The final set of data that are shown in Figure 18 stem
from the unconfined, spherical and obstructed tests References
conducted by the authors ‘. The data are collected in the
Hjertager, B. H., ‘A Computer Model for Gas Explosion Propag-
27 m3 3-D corner, which is Q of a full unconfined ation in Complex High-Density Geometries’, Chr. Michelsen
sphere. The vent parameter for these cases amounts to Institute, CM1 Report No. 833403-5, 1984
about 6.0, which is beyond the present module tests. Solberg, D. M., ‘Gas Explosion Research Related to Safety of
Ships and Offshore Platforms’, Fuel-Air Explosions, SM Study
However, it is seen that the data for a volume blockage No. 16, Univ. of Waterloo Press, Ontario, Canada, 787, 1982
ratio, VBR = 0.2, and obstacle dimension equal to Eckhoff, R. K., Fuhre, K., Guirao, C. M. and Lee, 3. H. S., Fire
810 mm and 420 mm, is a good extrapolation of the Safely Journal, 1984, 7, 191
Moen, I. O., Lee, J. H. S., Hjertager. B. H., Fuhre, K. and
present data. The 3-D data also show the large effects of Eckhoff, R. K., Combustion and Flame, 1982, 47, 31
obstacle size for a given VBR. As we can see, the Bjerkhaug, M. and Hjertager, B. H., ‘The Influence of Confme-
smallest obstacle dimension of 164 mm and VBR = 0.2 ment on Flame Propagation and Pressure Development in a Radial
Vessel of Ten Metre Radius’, Chr. Michelsen Institute, CM1
produced a peak pressure of about 350 mbaro. All in Report No. 855403-2, 1985
all, the present module data seem to fit well into the Hjertager, B. H., Fuhre, K. and Bjsrkhaug, M., ‘Concentration
patterns previously found by the authors and others. Effects on Flame Acceleration by Obstacles in Large-Scale
Methane-Air and Propane-Air Vented Explosions’, 1988, Comb.
Sci. Technical. submitted for publication
Hjertager, B. H., Fuhre, K. and Bjerkhaug. M., ‘Spherical Gas
Conclusions Explosion Experiments in a High-Density Obstructed 27 m2
Corner’, 1988, to be presented at 6th International Conference on
1. The peak pressure inside the modules shows strong Loss Prevention and Safety Promolions iwthe Process Industries,
dependence on the venting arrangement. The highest Oslo, Norway, June 1989

J. Loss Prev. Process lnd., 1988, Vol 1, October 205