J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. Vol. 10. No. 4. PP.

271-283, 1997
0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
PII:SO950-4230(97)00017-X 095&4230/97 $17.00 + 0.00

Statistical estimation of loads from gas

explosions

Stian H&set*?, Bj#rn H. Hjertager$§, Tron Solberg* and Kjell A. Malof-

*Telemark Technological R&D Centre (Tel-Tek), Kjglnes ring, 3914 Porsgrunn,
Norway
$Telemark Institute of Technology (HiT-TF) and Telemark Technological R&D
Centre (Tel-Tek), Kjglnes ring, 3914 Porsgrunn, Norway
§Aalborg University Esbjerg, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
tNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7034 Trondheim,
Norway

There are several sources for possible errors when numerical gas explosion simulators are
applied to estimate loads on structures and equipment. The present paper proposes a partial
coefficient method to deal with uncertainties that arises from variations of the location of the
ignition source, and the lack of knowledge of size and location of the exploding gas cloud. The
method also describes how to take into account physical and numerical idealization errors of
the current available explosion simulators. The paper describes the procedure to calculate distri-
bution quantiles for explosion parameters such as pressure and impulse with appropriate con-
fidence levels. Non-parametric statistics are used to generalize and quantify the effect of the
ignition point location in several offshore modules. The coefficients to achieve reasonable levels
of safety are provided for these cases. Existing explosion simulator validation data are used to
provide acceptable levels of safety in the estimation of gas explosion parameters. 0 1997 Elsev-
ier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: Quantitative risk assessment; gas explosions; statistical load estimation

Nomenclature PO 75 the 75% quantile in the population of pm=,, [kN/m*]

Po.75.
+ 0.90 the upper 90% confidence limit of the 75% quantile in
denomination of confidence level the population of pmax,,[kN/mz]
any dynamically varying explosion pressure [kN/m*] r index for a particular observation in i sample, i.e. X,
a chmucreristic maximum explosion pressure, corrected index for a particular observation in i sample, i.e. X,
for insecurities regarding gas cloud, ignition source and ; the impulse of the positive phase of any explosion
model imperfectness, pC = pmaryGy,yu [kN/m2] pressure p(t) [kNs/m2]
a characteristic maximum explosion pressure, corrected L a charackkstic explosion impulse, corrected for
for insecurities regarding ignition source and model insecurities regarding gas cloud, ignition source and
imperfectness, but not gas cloud size, pc.lM = pmaly,yM model imperfectness, I, = &T,r [kNs/m2]
[kN/m2] I C.lr.4 a characterirric explosion lmpu r se, corrected for
a set of several p(t) [kN/m*] insecurities regarding ignition source and model
the maximum value of any p(r), i.e. pmax= max(p(r)) imperfectness, but not gas cloud size ZC,,, = IYlyM
[kN/m2] [kNs/m2]
a set of several pmax [kN/m*] Ii a set of I [kNs/m*]
a quantile in the population of pmax,,&N/m*], also used 1, a quantile in the population of I, [kNs/mz], also used as a
as a short form for pK,+, short form for I,, + ,
lower limit in a confidence interval in the estimation of I,. I lower limit in a confidence interval in the estimation of
P. [kN/m*l I, [kNs/m2]
upper limit in a confidence interval in the estimation of I *, + I upper limit in a confidence interval in the estimation of
P. [kNh21 I, [kNs/m2]
IO.75 the 75% quantile in the population of Ii [kNs/m*]
IO.75
+0.90 the upper 90% confidence limit of the 75% quantile in
the distribution of I, [kNs/m’]
tTo whom correpondence should be addressed. Tel.: + 47 35 P(...) probability
57 41 24 (direct); Fax: + 47 35 57 40 10. x,,...,X” a sorted samljle of pmar., or
X, an observation in a sample

271
272 Gas explosion
Greek characters
(Y 0 < cx < 1, number used in estimating the confidence
level
Y a collective denomination of any y value
3/o load coefficient due to uncertainty due to gas volume
and location
n load coefficient due to uncertainty due to ignition
point location
a set of several 7,
load coefficient due to model uncertainty
the 75% quantile in the population of any y
a quantile in a population
estimated mean
a set of several p
estimated standard deviation
1. Introduction
1.1. The problem
During recent years it has become common to use
numerical solvers to estimate the explosion over-pressure
from gas explosions in offshore installations. Such
numerical solvers are found in computer codes such as
EXSIM [l], FLACS [2] and REAGAS [3]. For a given
offshore module (or onshore plant) layout, gas type,
cloud size and ignition point, these numerical codes cal-
culate the pressure-time history at selected monitoring
points. Compared with experimental data, the compu-
tational methods give results of the same order as the
experiments, but the numerical codes will usually under-
or overpredict the real values by some factor, varying
from problem to problem. This is mainly due to the
physical assumptions made and the mathematical ideali-
zations implemented.
The plant or offshore module geometry, the struc-
tures and the process equipment are usually fairly well
known. Possible gas types likely to participate in an
explosion likewise. The size of the gas cloud, however,
has to be calculated with appropriate methods known
from risk assessment.
The location of the ignition point in an explosion
is rarely known. During simulations, the ignition point
is usually varied while other parameters are kept con-
stant to get an idea of the significance of the ignition
point location. The authors’ experience is that the results
from such variations can be dramatic, with variations up
to a factor of order 10 in magnitude in the explosion
overpressure.
The variation of goodness of the results from case
to case-whether they come from model idealization or
choice of ignition point location-represents a problem
in the explosion codes when the resulting explosion data
are supposed to be used to predict the explosion pressure
in Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA).
The variation of the reliability of the computational
models and the human insufficiency in determining a
representative ignition point are both factors that fit
poorly into the QRA approach.
1.2. Relevant works
Ricketts [4] points out that the so-called new era will
have significant influence on explosion hazards evalu-
loads: S. Hpriset et al.
ation, and specifically mentions CFD explosion models
and the use of results from these, including the effect of
ignition point location, as an area where it is necessary
to achieve a better understanding.
Design load codes such as NS3479 [5] and the
introduction of the reliability-based code API RP 2A
LRFD [6] have shown the necessity of good models for
quantifying risk factors for explosion loads. Both the
works cited above use some kind of partial load coef-
jicient method in establishing the design load.
Saeter et al. [7] presented a validation of the EXSIM
simulation code. The presentation held a large number
of comparisons between simulated and experimental
explosion data, concluding that the actual maximum
explosion overpressure with 90% confidence will lie
within f 46% of the value predicted by EXSIM. The
authors did not pursue the results to produce model
uncertainty factors.
van Wingerden et al. [2] have presented a short
validation of the FLACS simulation code with the con-
clusion that the majority of the simulations are within
30% of the experimental results. The paper showed no
calculations of the deviations between simulations and
actual explosions.
The present authors are not familiar with any
research concerning the use of Load and Resistance Fac-
tor Design (LRFD) applied to explosion loads. However,
the statistical methods that are necessary to establish the
coefficients used in load design can be found in sev-
eral textbooks.
1.3. Objective of paper
The present paper proposes a possible partial load cocf-
ficient approach for loads obtained from numerical
explosion simulators. Given the results from a few simu-
lations, it is possible to derive general ‘load factors’ to
achieve a statistical reasonable design load, applicable
for structural design. The derivation of the coefficients
are based on non-parametric statistics.
The use of the proposed approach using data from
numerical explosion simulators will be consistent with
the QRA philosophy.
2. Variadles affecting uncertainty in
explosion pressure estimation
There are several factors related to uncertainty during
modelling and calculations that affect the results from
numerical explosion simulators.
The physical assumptions and mathematical models
implemented in the explosion simulators are sources of
possible errors in the final results. Such errors may be
treated with statistical methods. Quantitative criteria of
the deviations between numerical simulation and actual
experiments are necessary for validation. In this way it
is possible to prescribe a model uncertainty load factor.
This model uncertainty load factor can then be used to
achieve a statistical acceptable design explosion load
from the simulated results.
 Gas explosion
There are in addition other factors which influence
the final result when performing an explosion simulation,
such as:
Geometric model, e.g. equipment and pipes. The
engineer may not know the final layout when the cal-
culations are performed.
The gas type(s) likely to be involved in a possible
explosion.
The size and location of the exploding gas cloud.
The equivalence, or fuel-oxygen ratio.
The ignition point source and location.
Geometric model or module layout has a significant
effect on the explosion pressure. There has to be an inter-
action in the planning process between the layout plan-
ning and the explosion risk evaluation to minimize the
effect of missing pipes, etc., in the calculations. The
geometry of the explosion hazard area is one of the most
important factors influencing the explosion. A correct
specification of the layout is of major importance.
The gas type likely to explode is usually known.
The errors from misinterpretation of the gas type are
expected to be negligible. If there are several possible
explosive gas types in the area, parallel simulations have
to be performed to conclude which gas type has the most
destructive effect in an explosion.
The size and location of the exploding gas cloud
will significantly affect the explosion pressures. These
factors have a great uncertainty associated with them,
and they have to be evaluated thoroughly in the risk
assessment. If possible, the use of statistical methods to
quantify the level of uncertainty is desirable.
The equivalence, or fuel-oxygen ratio in the
exploding cloud is also of great significance. The ratio
will be a function of space and time, and will generally
not be available. Experiments done by Hjertager et al.
[8] shows that the explosion peak pressure maximizes at
stoichiometric or slightly fuel-rich mixtures. A stoichio-
metric mixture in the simulations is therefore assumed
to be a conservative presumption.
2.1. Location of the ignition point
A typical result from an explosion simulation using
EXSIM is shown in Figure I. The simulation is from a
reconstruction of the Piper Alpha accident.
By collecting results from several simulations with
different ignition points, it is possible to form an
observed probability density function for the maximum
overpressure with ignition point location as variable.
Examples of such distribution diagrams are shown in
Figure 2. The diagrams are created by observing and
grouping the maximum explosion pressure from simula-
tions with random placement of the ignition point in the
Piper Alpha C module [9] with the lower eastern quad-
rant filled with gas. The upper half of Figure 2 visualizes
the distribution when the gas is selected to be methane,
while lower half shows the results from simulations with
propane. In both cases ‘small’ overpressures, i.e. no
loads: S. H&et et al. 273
apparent deflagration during the first 10 s of the simul-
ation (most likely arising from explosions degenerating
to fires), are discarded in the simulation results.
Similar distribution functions for maximum over-
pressure from explosion simulations when varying the
ignition point location can also be observed for other
geometries. The distributions observed from similar
simulations of the CMR M24 module [lo], full-scale
version, are shown in Figure 3, while the results from
simulations of the CMR M25 module [lo], full-scale
version, afe shown in Figure 4.
From the maximum pressure distribution figures it
is obvious that the quality of the simulation result relies
heavily on the user’s capability to guess the right
ignition point, not only the implementation of the math-
ematical and physical models used in the simulator. In
the inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster [ 111, the con-
clusion was
The location and nature of the source of the ignition
are unknown, but the location was probably such as
to favour high over-pressures.
This statement shows the importance of knowing
the influence of the ignition point location. The distri-
bution functions give us the opportunity to estimate a
maximum explosion pressure that satisfies the cited
statement.
Figures 2, 3 and 4 with distribution functions are
established by random selections of ignition point inside
the gas cloud. In a ‘normal’ situation, where the user of
the simulator program has to make an assumption of the
ignition source, the possibility of picking a location
‘such as to favour high over-pressures’ are greater than
the random situation showed in the distribution Figures
2, 3 and 4, but it requires a great skill by the user, and
there will always be an uncertainty in the final result.
The calculations show that the factor between the
lowest significant and the highest results may differ as
much as a factor of magnitude 10. This shows that the
location of the ignition point is of great importance in
explosion simulations. It further shows that a user of
these simulators hardly can be expected to pick a ‘worst
case’ with respect to ignition point when performing
such calculations.
The present paper shows that this kind of uncer-
tainties may be taken into account by appropriate statisti-
cal methods.
3. Proposal of design load model
It seems most natural to propose a design load model
that takes into account the uncertainties that arise from
?? Explosion modelling idealization
?? Gas cloud size and location
0 Ignition point source location
Other variables affecting the uncertainty level can
either be taken care of by conservative assumptions or
274 Gas explosion loads: S. Haiset et al.

Pressure-time history
Piper Alhpa C Module simulation with methane

0.25

0.20
F
& 0.15

5 0.10

K
8 0.05
B
0.00

-0.05

-0.10
0 500 1000 1500
Time [rns]

Figure 1 Typical pressur+time history for a methane explosion with 8 pressure-monitoring points. Simulation of the Piper Alpha
C module explosion with a random ignition point [91

are of minor significance compared to the above men-
tioned.
The explosion pressure is a dynamic quantity, p =
p(t). Since the response of structures due to gas
explosions however rarely will be in the impulsive
regime [12], the impulse of the loading will be a para-
meter of minor interest. The response in the dynamic
and quasi-static regime are dominated by the maximum
overpressure, and therefore emphasis will here be put on
the maximum pressure, denoted pmax = max(p(t)}.
The model presented here uses an approach similar
to that found in load standards, such as NS 3479 [5]. A
characteristic load, pC, which takes into account the
given insecurities, can then be presented as
PC = P mm %%YI’YM
where p_ is the maximum explosion pressure load
obtained from the explosion simulator, 3/o is a factor
compensating for uncertainty in estimating size and
location of the gas cloud, y1 is a factor taking account
of variance of ignition point location and ‘yMis a factor
compensating for mathematical and physical inaccuracy
in the explosion simulator.
This paper provides methods for prediction and
quantification of the factors 3/r and 3/M.This paper pro-
vides no means of establishing a proper value of ‘yo. The
uncertainty that arises from gas cloud size and location
has to be estimated in other ways.
Hence, in this article, the parameter to be estimated
is the maximum explosion pressure corrected for uncer-
tainties regarding the explosion simulator model accu-
racy and the location of the ignition point. We will
denote this parameter pc,lM, thus
P c,IM = P max 3/13/M
4. Uncertainty regarding use of explosion
simulators
Explosion simulators will always produce some errors
in their estimation of the parameters in the explosion
event. These errors are unavoidable, they arise from ide-
alization in the physical and mathematical models used.
The magnitudes of the errors, however, will vary from
model to model and from case to case.
To deal with this kind of model errors, a model
uncertainty loadfactor, J+,.,can be introduced. This coef-
ficient will take into account the variation of simulated
results from experimental results. The registration of
such variations may be done during the validation of
the code.
(1)
In this section model uncertainty load factors for
the EXSIM explosion simulator [7,13] are established.
Published validation data for other simulators that can
be used to extract similar model uncertainty load factors
are not known to the present authors.
The EXSIM gas explosion simulator
Previous work. Saeter et al. [7] presented a validation of
the EXSIM-94 gas explosion simulator based on 40
cases. The validation was only performed on the
maximum overpressures. The paper proposed to use a
method that calculated a ‘relative error’, ei, to investigate
the quality of the results;
where yi is the predicted result’ and xi is the observed,
experimental result of the ith observation.
The paper further assumed that the relative error ei
(2) followed a Gaussian distribution and that 4 of the 40
 Gas explosion loads: S. Haiset et al. 275

Distribution of moxirnun explosion overpre~ dw to ignition point b&ion

Piper Alpha C Mo&le, l/4 modub fikd with methane
[l/bar01
6-

5-
1

htervd for maximmovarprcave [tea]

Distribution of maximum exdosion over~ees~~ru dw to ianWon point b&ion
Piper Alpho C kdule, l/4 &dub filed with-prop&

htervd for moximun

ovarprasswa [ko]

Figure2 Distribution of maximum overpressures in simulations of the Piper Alpha C module explosion [9,111. Upper half shows
sample distribution from 177 simulations using EXSIM with methane as gas while varying the ignition point location. Lower half
shows sample distribution from 179 simulations using EXSIM with propane as gas while varying the ignition point location

cases that showed extreme behaviour could be discarded.
The authors also discussed the simulator results if 8 of
40 cases could be classified as ‘abnormal’ and conse-
quently be discarded. The last case is not taken into
account here.
Within these limits (i.e. assumption of Gaussian
distribution and four cases discarded by ‘common
sense’), and using the most recent version of EXSIM
[13], we estimate the mean ei as - 0.05, i.e. the EXSIM
model underpredicts the maximum explosion overpres-
sure with about 5%. Further, we can estimate the 95%
confidence interval of the relative error to lie within f
70% of the mean value and the 99% confidence interval
to lie within f 104% of the mean Value.
The data in the EXSIM validation are based on the
maximum explosion pressure. It is not validated versus
explosion impulse. However, the authors’ impression is
that the coefficients derived in the next section with care
may also be used with respect to impulse values.
Derived factors. Although load factors were not
presented in the cited article, statistical handbooks give
the explicit quantiles of the probability density distri-
bution of the relative error. Following the assumption of
Gaussian distribution of the results, we achieve the
values given in Table 1 for ‘yMafter a correction for the
bias in the relative error. The values are based on a mean
 276 Gas explosion loads: S. Haiset et al.

Distribution of maximum explosion overpressum c&a to ignition point lo&ion

CMF! M24 Module, l/4 rnoduk find with methcne
1’44
20

15

htavd for mo*mvnowrpf-e [bcro]

Distribution of rnoximun explosion overpressure due to ignition point b&ion

CMR M24 kc&b, l/4 mod& fikd with propone
[l/bar01
16

htervd for mox’vnun ovaprcrue [ba]

Figure3 Distribution of maximum overpressures in simulations of explosion in the CMR M24 module [10,71, full-scale version. Upper
half shows sample distribution from 150 simulations using EXSIM with methane as gas while varying the ignition point location.
Lower half shows sample distribution from 153 simulations using EXSIM with propane as gas while varying the ignition point location

of p = - 0.05 and a standard deviation of (T = 0.35 for
the relative error ,ei.
From Table 1 we can read that if we want to be
90% sure that the maximum explosion pressure, as cal-
culated by EXSIM, is not to be exceed in situ, we have
to multiply the simulator’s result with a factor J+,.,= 1.52.
Table 1 is not absolute. It has to be read as ‘as far
as we know today’. Further experiments and validation
calculations may change these factors.
5. Statistical treatment of effects from
location of ignition source
The results shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4 form in general
unknown distributions. Plots of the data set from simula-
tions of the Piper Alpha C Module explosion with meth-
ane as gas on normal and lognormal paper are shown in
Figure 5.
It is the authors’ impression that the data sets from
explosion simulations hardly can be expected to be
neither normal nor lognormal. There are two alternatives
when choosing further processing of the samples, either
searching for more-or-less fitting distributions or treat
the data sets with non-uarametric methods. With access
to powerful computers, the latter approach is attractive.
5.1. Non-parametric statistics
When regarding statistical data with unknown distri-
bution, such as the results from explosion simulators,
 Gas explosion loads: S. Hgiiset et al. 277

Distrbutlln of rmx’unm axptoalon ovarpresaum dw to ignition point location

CMI M25 hbdub, l/4 mod& filad with methane
[l/bar01
4.0

2.5 i

htervd for maxim ovcrprwsue [bm]

Distribution of moximun explosion overpresaum due to ignition point location

CMR M25 ModA, l/4 m&da fikd with propane
[l/bQOl
4.0-l

3.5-

3.0-

2.5-
2.

% 2.0-
I=
1.5-

htwvd for mox’vnvn overpr-a [brro]

Figure 4 Distribution of maximum overpressures in simulations of explosion in the CMR M25 module [10,71, full-scale version. Upper
half shows sample distribution from 257 simulations using EXSIM with methane as gas while varying the ignition point location.
Lower half shows sample distribution from 272 simulations using EXSIM with propane as gas while varying the ignition point location

non-parametric or order statistics may be used. Gibbons

1141 has deduced the eouations
A used in this A
oaoer.
I This
Table 1 Values of the model uncertainty load factor yr,.,to pro- _ ;
sectron contains a short summary.
duce a statistical quantile for maximum pressure values from
-
the EXSIM gas exolosion simulator We let X1, X,,..., X, denote a random sample from
a population, such as the maximum overpressures from
Quantile in simulated Model uncertainty load factor explosion simulations when varying the ignition point
explosion pressure to achieve yhn
location. The sample is sorted in increasing magnitude,
in such a way that X, < X, < ... < XCr,< ... < XCS,<
75% 1.30
90% 1.52 ... < X”.
95% 1.65 To estimate a confidence interval for a population
98% 1.86
99% 1.90
quantile, K~, this can be done by calculating the prob-
ability that the quantile will lie between two observations
in the sample,
 278 Gas explosion loads: S. HIdiset et al.

Explosion overpresswe plot on normd distribution paper

1~01 Piper APho C Module, l/4 module filled with methone
0.6-

0.0 1 I I I I I I
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Stondord variate s

Explosion overpressure plot on lognormal distribution paper

Piper Alpha C Module, l/4 mocUe filed with methane
[t-l

+’
0.1 , I I I I I I
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Standard voriote s

Figure 5 Plot of explosion pressure on normal and lognormal diagrams. The dataset is extracted from simulations of the Piper Alpha
C Module with methane as gas. Straight lines are drawn on basis of linear regression for the normal distribution diagram and
estimated from the points (0.X medisn)and (l,&.B4) in the lognormal diagram

P(&, < Kp < xc,) = 1 - (Y (4) order to avoid misunderstandings regarding the use of
the letter p. Also, Z, will denote K~ when discussing the
where X,, and XCS,denotes two observations, r < s. 1
impulse population quantile. Later in the article we will
- (Yis the confidence level associated with the unequali-
derive a set of load factors y with their corresponding
ties.
distribution functions, and yK is a quantile based on their
The probability is given in original notation by
sorted sets.
s- 1 Gibbons suggests to choose r and s such that s -
&$,<K,<x,s,)= c ; P’(l -P)“-’ (3 r is a minimum for a fixed a’. However, there is also the
i=r 0
possibility to choose r and s such that the difference X,
where p is the sought quantile level (e.g. 90%3p = - X, forms a minimum. Sometimes there will be several
OS@), not to be misinterpreted as explosion pressure. equal interval spans s - r that satisfy the same confi-
Henceforward we will denote Gibbons’ K~ (quantile dence criterion, with no particular clues to which span
in a population) as pK (pressure population quantile) in is the one to favour.
 Gas explosion
The calculations in this paper is based on the situ-
ation ‘first come’, i.e. the first probability found by the
computer that satisfies the given confidence criterion is
used, not concerning which of the minimum criterion is
achieved. This may produce some minor ‘jumps’ in the
tables presented, but they are expected to be of less
importance.
5.2. Application to simulated results
Given the data in, for example, Figure 2, the estimation
of an explosion over-pressure quantile pK can be done by
using equation (5). The quantile will lie within a confi-
dence interval, pK E [PK. _ l,pK.+ ,I, where 1 denotes the
confidence level. It follows that one can be certain with
(at least) the chosen confidence level that the actual
quantile pK has a lower value than its upper confidence
limit, pK, + ,.
In this paper, the upper limit for the population
quantile within a confidence level is taken to be the
population quantile itself. Thus we will denote pK, + 1 as
pX. This is formally incorrect, but serves the purpose of
this paper. We will likewise denote I,, + , as I,.
The confidence interval will be case-specific. With
enough simulations, non-parametric statistics can always
be used to achieve a certain quantile in the explosion
pressure with a preferred confidence interval for a given
case (i.e. geometry, gas type and cloud size). This is the
desired procedure.
The samples presented here can be used to estimate
their specific quantiles in the population. Furthermore,
they can be used to derive several statistically interesting
properties in further risk analysis.
5.3. Generalization of explosion data
As explained, the derivation of such confidence intervals
will depend on a certain amount of simulations for each
given case. This can be costly and time-consuming, and
motivates the search for a simpler and more general-
but still statistically correct-method.
A situation may occur where the cost or time only
allows a few, say two, simulations of an explosion with
arbitrary ignition points within a module. How can we
use data from earlier simulations to obtain a sound stat-
istical platform for the use of these two new simulations?
This situation is solved by extracting data from sets
such as those given in Figure 2. If we draw 2 data points
from a set of 177 observations (the results presented in
the upper half of Figure 2), and take the mean value of
177
these 2, we will gain a set of = 15 576 mean
i 2 1
values, denoted pi, i = l,..., 15 576. Each of these means
of observations pi can be used to normalize the desired
pressure quantile by dividing the quantile with the mean,
and thus achieve a ‘load factor’ due to variation of
ignition point location, 71-i = pJ/Li. The set Of K,i, i =
1,**.,15 576 will thus be a sample of factors for multiply-
ing the mean value to obtain the desired pressure quan-
loads: S. Haiset et al. 279
tile. An example of the distribution of y, is shown in
Figure 6.
The distribution of yI in Figure 6 is much smoother
than the distributions of pmax, and a test of 7, versus
various known distribution functions may well lead to a
result. However, if we continue our non-parametric treat-
ment of the observed data, we can, after some compu-
tations, present a 7/rK,i.e. an upper limit for a quantile
for y, with a specific confidence level 1 in a set of J+,~.
Although slightly incorrect, we will call this upper con-
fidence limit of the population quantile for 7,.
The quantile K~ (Gibbons’ notation, see Section 5.1)
and confidence level 1 will generally be different for
P max,i or I,, and their corresponding -yl,i.
The factor 3/rwill give us a measure of the statistical
variance when varying the ignition point location. For a
given case, the result can be written as
PC.1= PYI (6)
where “/I is a factor to correct the mean value I_Lof 2 (or
more) explosion simulations to achieve a pressure pc,I
corrected for variance of the ignition point location. The
quantile and confidence level for both p and y has to be
specified to gain the appropriate yi.
The method is also applicable for a larger number
of simulations than 2, and this will produce lower factors
-y,. However, this will usually require a sampling of the
total population of 3/I,i,because of the large number of
possible combinations of simulations.
6. Data derived from simulations
This section contains a summary of the data obtained
when performing non-parametric statistics on maximum
pressures and explosion impulse from a selected set of
cases.
6.1. Piper Alpha C Module
Simulations are performed for the Piper Alpha C Module
explosion. The input data for simulations performed in
this subsection are based on [9] with some small modi-
fications based on drawings from [ 111.
The module is filled with gas in the lower eastern
quadrant. The gas is either methane or propane, and the
results produce distribution functions for explosion
pressure load or impulse magnitude when the ignition
point is varied. From the distribution functions several
quantiles are extracted. The calculated quantiles are then
divided by the mean value of 2, 3 and 4 random values
from the same set of data to achieve an ignition point
uncertainty load factor yI.
A summary of the calculations is given in Table 2.
The summary is presented as the 98% confidence level
of the 90% quantile of K, which is used to achieve the
90% confidence levels of the 75%, 90% or 95% quan-
tiles of the pressure values Pma,i or the impulse Zi. The
data are derived from a set of 132 (methane) and 128
(propane) simulations.
280 Gas explosion loads: S. Hgiset et al.

Distribution of y coefficient

1.2, ??

1.0,

3 0.8,

f
g 0.6,
t

lntervd for 7 coefficient

Figure 6 Distribution of -y, = PK/~where PKis the explosion pressure quantile sought

Table 2 Piper Alpha C Module. Summary of the values of the 98% confidence level of the 90% quantile of the ignition point uncertainty
load factor y,, used to produce the 90% confidence level of the 75%, 90% and 95% quantiles of the sought parameter (pressure load
or impulse)

Load type Gas type

Methane Propane
No. of simulations No. of simulations
2 3 4 2 3 4

75% quantile

Pressure 1.68 1.63 1.57 1.74 1.67 1.62

Impulse 1.46 1.43 1.39 1.38 1.35 1.33

90% quantile

Pressure 2.16 2.09 2.01 2.07 2.00 1.93

Impulse 1.86 1.82 1.77 1.73 1.70 1.66

95% quantile

Pressure 2.27 2.20 2.11 2.21 2.13 2.07

Impulse 1.88 1.84 1.79 1.79 1.76 1.72

As an example: Let us assume that a ‘reasonable’ 6.2. CMR M24 Module

security level of the explosion pressure regarding
ignition point variation is assumed to be the 90% quan-
tile with 90% confidence, and likewise a ‘reasonable’
level in the calculation of the statistical factor 7/r is the
90% quantile with 98% confidence. The user performs
three simulations with three arbitrary ignition points and
calculates the mean value from these. From Table 2 we
can read that an appropriate value for the maximum
overpressure as a result from a propane explosion is 3/r
= 2*003 thus PC.1 = &from 3 simulations)-2*00~
Simulations are performed for the CMR M24 experi-
ments, full-scale version. The input data for simulations
performed in this subsection are based on [lo] as
implemented in [7].
The module is filled with gas in the ‘lower eastern
quadrant’. (geographic orientation makes no sense for
this experimental module, but the goal is to create a situ-
ation similar to Piper Alpha). The gas is either methane
or propane, and the results produce distribution functions
for explosion pressure load or impulse magnitude when
 Gas explosion loads: S. H@iset et al. 281

Table 3 CMR M24 Module. Summary of the values of the 98% confidence level of the 90% quantile of the ignjtion point uncertainty
load factory,, used to produce the 90% confidence level of the 75%, 90% and 95% quantile of the sought parameter (pressure load
or impulse)

Load type Gas type

Methane Propane
No. of simulations No. of simulations
2 3 4 2 3 4

75% quantile

Pressure 1.86 1.77 1.70 1.98 1.87 1.79

Impulse 1.66 1.60 1.55 1.68 1.61 1.56

90% quantile

Pressure 2.43 2.32 2.22 2.30 2.18 2.08

Impulse 1.89 1.82 1.77 1.91 1.84 1.77

95% quantile

Pressure 2.59 2.47 2.36 2.47 2.34 2.23

Impulse 1.94 1.87 1.81 2.04 1.96 1.89

the ignition point is varied. From the distribution func-
tions several quantiles are extracted. The calculated
quantiles are then divided by the mean value of 2, 3 and
4 random values from the same set of data to achieve
an ignition point uncertainty load factor yI.
A summary of the calculations is given in Table 3.
The summary is presented as the 98% confidence level
of the 90% quantile of yIyI,which is used to achieve the
90% confidence levels of the 75%, 90% and 95% quan-
tiles of the pressure value p-j or the impulse Zi. The
data are derived from a set of 150 (methane) and 153
(propane) simulations.
4.3. CMR M25 Module
Simulations are performed for the CMR M25 experi-
ments, full-scale version. The input data for simulations
performed in this subsection are based on [lo] as
implemented in [7].
The module is filled with gas in the ‘lower eastern
quadrant’ (see explanatory note for the M24 module).
The gas is either methane or propane, and the results
produce distribution functions for explosion pressure
load or impulse magnitude when the ignition point is
varied. From the distribution functions several quantiles
are extracted. The calculated quantiles are then divided

Table 4 CMR M25 Module. Summary of the values of the 98% confidence level of the 90% quantile of the ignition point uncertainty
load factor n, used to produce the 90% confidence level of the 75%, 90% and 95% quantile of the sought parameter (pressure load
or impulse)

Load type Gas type

Methane Propane
No. of simulations No. of simulations
2 3 4 ’ 2 3 4

75% quantile

Pressure 1.39 1.36 1.33 1.28 1.26 1.25

Impulse 1.21 1.20 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.15

90% quantile

Pressure 1.51 1.48 1.45 1.44 1.43 1.41

Impulse 1.33 1.32 1.30 1.24 1.23 1.22

95% ,quantile

Pressure 1.74 1.71 1.67 1.52 1.50 1.49

Impulse 1.39 1.37 1.36 1.28 1.27 1.26
282 Gas explosion
by the mean value of 2,3 and 4 random values from the
same set of data to achieve an ignition point uncertainty
load factor yI.
The summary is presented in Table 4 as the 98%
confidence level of the 90% quantile of ‘yI,which is used
to achieve the 90% confidence levels of the 75%, 90%
and 95% quantiles of the pressure value pmax,i or the
impulse Ii. The data are derived from a set of 129
(methane) and 136 (propane) simulations.
6.4. Comparison of results
The mean of the results for the 90% quantile values of
p and I are shown in Table 5.
The results, both the mean and the individual data,
show that
?? 7, is larger for pressure than for impulse
?? there seems to be a general reduction of y1 as the mag-
nitude of the explosion increases.
i.e. the effect of the ignition point location has greater
influence on pressure than impulse, but less overall
influence as the magnitude of the explosions increases.
This can be seen from the tables compared to the
explosion pressure levels found in the figures. The CMR
M24 Module, with the lowest explosion pressures, has
the greatest ignition point insecurity load factors, while
the CMR M25 Module, with the highest explosion press-
ures, has the lowest ignition point insecurity load factors.
The Piper Alpha C Module comes somewhere in
between.
By increasing the number of simulations from 2 to
4 we gain a reduction in the ignition point uncertainty
load factor for explosion pressure from about 2 to 10%.
The gain is most significant for low overpressures, and
the results from the methane and propane explosions are
very similar.
7. Conclusion
A method to deal with uncertainties when estimating
loads from gas explosion has been proposed. The
method takes into account uncertainties regarding
numerical implementation, ignition point location and
gas location and size using partial load coefficients.
The method uses gas explosion simulator validation
data to extract appropriate factors for several safety lev-
els. Factors compensating for uncertainty regarding
Table 5 Ali modules. Mean value of the 98% confidence level of the 90% quantile of the ignition point location uncertainty load factor
y,, used to produce the 90% confidence level of the 90% quantile of the parameter in interest (pressure load or impulse)
Load type
Methane
No. of simulations
2 3
Pressure 2.05 1.96 1.89
Impulse 1.69 1.65 1.61
loads: S. Hgiset et al.
ignition point location are derived using non-para-
metric statistics.
Model uncertainty load factors are provided for the
EXSIM-94 explosion simulator. Depending on the
desired level of safety, the load factor varies from 1.30
(75% quantile) to 1.90 (99% quantile).
An ignition point location uncertainty load factor
are calculated for three offshore modules for both
maximum pressure and positive explosion impulse. The
results show that the uncertainty level usually is larger
for pressure than for impulse and larger for propane than
for methane. The uncertainty level seems to decrease
when the maximum explosion pressure increases. Taking
the mean of the maximum explosion overpressure from
three simulations with arbitrary ignition points within the
gas cloud, a factor of magnitude 2 is adequate to achieve
the 90% quantile of the explosion pressure. The confi-
dence levels for the explosion pressure and the ignition
point location uncertainty load factor associated with this
value are discussed in the preceeding text.
The statistical methods described in the present
paper can be applied in extracting uncertainty load fac-
tors for other explosion parameters as described in [ 151,
e.g. pressure rise time and pressure pulse duration.
Together with the gas cloud size and location uncer-
tainty, these problems remain for further research.
References
111 Hjertager, B. H., EXSIM: A numerical method in detail. Paper
prepared for short course on ‘Explosion Prediction and Miti-
gation: Congested Volumes and Complex Geometries’ at Univer-
sity of Leeds. Telemark Institute of Technology (HiT/ATF) and
Telemark Technological R & D Centre (Tel-Tek), Kjtilnes, N-
3914 Porsgrunn, Norway, 1994.
VI van Wingerden, K., Hansen, 0. R. and Storvik, I., On the vali-
dation of a numerical tool used for explosion and dispersion pre-
dictions in the offshore industry. BHR Group Conference Series
Publications, 1995, 15, 201-219.
[31 van den Berg, A. C., REAGAS-a code for numerical simulation
of 2-D reactive gas dynamics in gas explosions. PML-TN0
Report PML 1989~IN48, 1989.
[41 Ricketts, R. E., Working in the new era-the effects on structural
design practices. Paper presented at the 4th International Confer-
ence and Exhibition: Offshore structures-Hazards, Safety and
Engineering, London, 1995.
PI NS3479, Prosjektering av bygningskonstruksjoner. Dirnensjoner-
ende laster. (Design of structures. Design loads.) Norges Stan-
dardiseringsforbund, Oslo, 1990.
[61 API RP 2A-LRFD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Design-
ing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Load and
Resistance Factor Design. American Petroleum Institute, 1993.
Gas type
Propane
No. of simulations
4 2 3 4
1.94 1.87 1.81
1.63 1.59 1.55
 Gas explosion loads: S. Hgfiset et al.
[7] Saeter, O., Solberg, T. and Hjertager, B. H., Validation of the
EXSIM-94 gas explosion simulator. Paper presented at the &I
International Conference and Exhibition: Offshore Structures-
Hazards, Safety and Engineering, London, 1995.
[8] Hjertager, B. H., Gas explosions in obstructed vessels. Paper pre-
pared for short course on ‘Explosion Prediction and Mitigation:
Congested Volumes and Complex Geometries’ at University of
Leeds. Telemark Institute of Technology (HiT/ATF) and Tele-
mark Technological R & D Centre (Tel-Tek), K_jolnes, N-3914
Porsgrunn, Norway, 1993.
191
__ Forrisdahl. J. E.. Scenario analvse av gasseksnlosionsubkker
(Scenario ‘analysis of gas explosion ac&ents, in Norwegian).
M.Sc. dissertation, Telemark Institute of Technology, Kjolnes, N-
3914 Porsgrunn, Norway, 1990.
[lo] Hjertager, B. H., Fuhre, K. and Bjorkhaug, M., Gas explosion
experiments in 1:33 and 1:5 scale offshore separator and com-
pressor modules using stoichiometric homogenous fuel/air
clouds. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
1988, 1, 197-205.
283
[l l] Cullen, W. D. Lord, The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha dis-
aster. Department of Energy (DEn), dHMS0 (Her Majesty’s
Stationary Office), London, 1990.
[ 121 Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of Topside
Structures against Explosion and Fire. The Steel Construction
Institute, England, 1992.
[13] Solberg, T. and Hjertager, B. H., EXSIM version 3.6 and 4.0:
Validation and documentation. Tel-Tek Report 500197-l. Tele-
mark Institute of Technology (HiT/ATF) and Telemark Techno-
logical R & D Centre (Tel-Tek), Kjolnes, N-3914 Porsgrunn,
Norway, May 1997.
[14] Gibbons, J. D., Nonparametric Statistical Inference. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, 1985.
[ 151 Gas Explosion Model Evaluation Protocol-Version 1. Model
Evaluation Group for Gas Explosions, European Communities,
Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development,
1996.