Comparison of
TNO Multienergy and
Baker–Strehlow–Tang Models
Ali Sari, Ph.D., P.E.
Atkins Oil and Gas, 920 Memorial City Way, Suite 700, Houston, TX 77024; absasari@gmail.com (for correspondence)
Published online 22 December 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/prs.10424
Vapor cloud explosions (VCEs) cause considerable
problems in the chemical and petrochemical indus-
tries. They generate damaging levels of overpressure
and the possibility of human injury/death, and build-
ing/equipment damage. Predicting the possible conse-
quences of VCEs is important to ensure the safe
design of existing and new structures. Prediction of
the overpressures resulting from a VCE is typically
done using simplified (empirical) models, phenome-
nological models, and computational fluid dynamics
models. The focus of this article is on two of the most
frequently used simplified prediction methods: TNO
multienergy and Baker–Strehlow–Tang models. These
models are compared in terms of structural response
and vulnerability of damage caused by an explosion.
Ó 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Pro-
cess Saf Prog 30: 23–26, 2011
Keywords: vapor cloud explosions; blast overpres-
sure; structural response; structural damage; explo-
sion hazard
INTRODUCTION
Any release of a flammable fluid in a petrochemi-
cal facility has the potential to generate a flammable
vapor cloud that, if ignited, could produce a vapor
cloud explosion (VCE). Past accidents have demon-
strated that vapor cloud explosions are the most
severe threat to refining and petrochemical industries.
Predicting the possible consequences of gas explo-
sions occurring in these industries is important to
ensure the safe design of existing and new structures,
and the risk assessment must be considered in the
development of their design. The predictions through
the assessment of such explosions are improved by
carrying out experiments and by using theoretical
Ó 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
models [1]. However, there are limitations to the ex-
perimental data available for making such predictions
because large-scale explosion experiments are pro-
hibitively expensive to perform [2]. Therefore, a vari-
ety of prediction methods have been developed to
estimate the air blast parameters at any given distance
from a possible explosion source, to assess explosion
hazards, and to design safer structures.
Prediction of the overpressures resulting from a
VCE is typically done using one of three categories of
models: simplified models, phenomenological mod-
els, and computational fluid dynamics models. As
Baker–Strehlow–Tang (BST) and the TNO multie-
nergy (ME) models are the most frequently used blast
overpressure simplified prediction methods, these
methods are compared in this study. TNO ME and
BST models are also compared in terms of structural
response and vulnerability of damage caused by an
explosion.
TNO ME MODEL
The multienergy concept [3–6] assumes that only
the part of the combustion energy present in the
flammable cloud which is confined or obstructed
contributes to pressure generation in the explosion.
In this way, the ME model takes account of the posi-
tive feedback mechanism of a gas explosion. The
amount of energy released during a VCE is limited ei-
ther by the volume of the partially confined portion
of the flammable vapor cloud (if the flammable vapor
cloud is larger than the partially confined region) or
by the volume of the vapor cloud (if the vapor cloud
is smaller than the volume of the portion of the par-
tially confined space). In either case, the volume of
the cloud within the partially confined space can be
converted into a hemisphere of equal volume. The
model treats the hemispherical cloud as a homogene-
ous, stoichiometric mixture of flammable gas and air,
March 2011 23
with combustion energy of 3.1 3 106 J/m3 (the aver-
age heat of combustion of a stoichiometric mixture of
hydrogen and air) [7].
TNO has used a flux-corrected transport code to
numerically simulate the explosion of a hemispheri-
cal, homogeneous, stoichiometric cloud, with con-
stant flame speed. The blast charts that determine
peak overpressure and the duration of the positive
phase form a family of curves relating the dimension-
less overpressure to the combustion energy-scaled
distance [8]. The source strength index that is an
overpressure level expected to occur in the
obstructed region, varying from one for weak explo-
sion in an unobstructed and unconfined region to 10
for detonation, is assigned a value to determine the
curves to use. The source strength depends on num-
ber, type, and orientation of the obstacles present in
obstructed region as well as the fuel reactivity.
The TNO ME model curves consist of positive
pressure and time duration as functions of distance.
The parameters were also nondimensionalized using
Sach’s scaling law with pressure, distance, and the
positive phase duration. These curves relate dimen-
sionless overpressure (overpressure divided by
atmospheric pressure) to combustion energy scaled
distance, which is calculated as shown in Eq. 1.
R
R ¼ ð1Þ
ðE=P0 Þ1=3
where R is the dimensionless combustion energy-
scaled distance, R is the distance from the edge of
the hemisphere in m, P0 is the ambient atmospheric
pressure in J/m3, and E is the total available energy
in J. The peak side-on overpressure DPS (N/m2) can
be calculated using the following relationship:
DPS ¼ DPS =P0 ð2Þ
where DPS is the dimensionless peak overpressure.
The tt time duration of the positive phase can be cal-
culated using the following equation:
tt C0
tt ¼ ð3Þ
ðE=P0 Þ1=3
where C0 is atmospheric sound speed in m/s.
BST METHODOLOGY
This model has some similarities with the TNO ME
model. Similar to TNO ME model, this model is based
on dimensionless overpressure and positive impulse
as a function of (a) energy-scaled distance from the
gas blast center, (b) the maximum flame speed using
the method based on the fuel reactivity, (c) degree of
confinement, and (d) obstacle density [9]. This
method uses the graphical relationship between
dimensionless and combustion energy-scaled dis-
tance, R. The curves used in the BST model are based
on numerical modeling of constant velocity flames
and accelerating flames spreading through spherical
24 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE
vapor clouds [10]. With this method, the strength of
the blast wave is proportional to the maximum flame
speed achieved within the cloud. Thus, each curve is
marked with a flame velocity, which is presented in
the form of a Mach number, Mf. The appropriate
flame speed (Mach number) for the specific situation
being modeled is selected [10,11].
The fuel reactivity and the congestion or obstacle
density are used in this calculation. The congestion
density is low if the area blockage ratio is below
10%, medium if it is in the range of 10–40%, and high
if the blockage ratio is higher than 40%. Finally, the
confinement or flame expansion must be taken into
account. A single plane is 2D. A pipe, culvert, or area
with a roof and two vertical walls would be 1D. The
2.5D confinement is defined as an area with limited
2D confinement, such as a roof and/or partial walls
that might be expected to fail quickly and provide
venting, or an area without total 2D confinement
such as an elevated fin fan cooler [7,9].
COMPARISON OF TNO ME AND BST METHODS
In both the BST and the ME models, the source
energy is defined by a stoichiometric flammable
cloud that is in a congested or partially confined
region [12]. Both models are based on dimensionless
overpressure and positive impulse as a function of
energy-scaled distance. Although Eq. 1 is used to cal-
culate the scaled distance for both methods, the defi-
nition of R differs. R is defined as the distance from
the center of the hemispherical explosion in the TNO
ME model. R is the distance from the actual conges-
tion center for the BST model. The flame speed for
the BS model or initial explosion strength for ME
model is determined by empirical approaches based
on the degree of confinement and obstruction with
the source region as well as the distance available for
flame acceleration [9,12,13]. Both methods require the
user to estimate the strength of the explosion as a
function of the reactivity of the flammable material
and the degree of confinement or congestion present
in the cloud. This information is then used to deter-
mine which strength curve (in the case of the TNO
model) or flame speed (in the case of the BST
model) is used to calculate the overpressure of the
explosion as a function of distance from the center of
the explosion.
The major difference between the ME and the BS
models is the method used to construct the graphical
relationship between dimensionless overpressure and
combustion energy-scaled distance. The curves used
in the BS model are based on numerical modeling of
constant flame velocities and accelerating flames
spreading through spherical vapor clouds. With this
method, the strength of blast wave is proportional to
the maximum flame speed, which is presented in the
form of a Mach number, achieved with the cloud [14].
VULNERABILITY STUDY
This section includes the estimation of the vulner-
ability of persons and structures to the physical
effects of a determined magnitude, which can be cal-
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
Table 1. Variation of the overpressure, impulse, vulnerability of a person, and the structural damage with the
distance—TNO MEM.

Ear Drum Death from Lung Structural

R0 (m) R0 (ft) P (psi) I (psi ms) Rupture (%) Hemorrhage (%) Damage (%)
10 33 58.8 940.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
60 197 5.9 125.4 45.1 0.0 98.5
150 492 2.2 82.3 2.2 0.0 24.7

Table 2. Variation of the overpressure, impulse, vulnerability of a person, and the structural damage with the
distance—BST model.

Ear Drum Death from Lung Structural

R0 (m) R0 (ft) P (psi) I (psi ms) Rupture (%) Hemorrhage (%) Damage (%)
10 33 21.3 318.2 99.1 54.4 100.0
60 197 6.6 135.8 54.1 0.0 99.4
150 492 2.6 69.8 4.8 0.0 44.0

Figure 1. Variation of the overpressure with the dis-

tance. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, Figure 3. Variation of vulnerability of persons with
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.] distance—eardrum rupture.

Figure 2. Variation of the impulse with the distance.

[Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, Figure 4. Variation of vulnerability of persons with
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.] distance—deaths from lung hemorrhage.

Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2011 25

Figure 5. Variation of structural damage (%) with dis-
tance.
culated with TNO ME and BST methods. In this arti-
cle, the Probit (probability unit) method is used.
Scenario
In this study, we assume a volume of
11,000 m3
of ethylene, and a high congestion and 3D flame
expansion are assumed for the overpressure and
impulse predictions. A fuel burning velocity of 80 cm/
s is used for ethylene (high reactivity). The explosion
energy is estimated to be 3.85E 1 10 and 7.14E110 J
for TNO MEM and BST methods, respectively. The se-
verity level for TNO MEM is determined as 10 and the
estimated flame speed is Mach 5.2 for BST method.
The explosion type is a detonation for this scenario.
Impulse and overpressure values for different distan-
ces are calculated by using TNO ME and BST models.
The percentages for eardrum rupture, death from lung
hemorrhage, and structural damage are determined and
compared using the probit equations.
Results and Discussion
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the variation of the over-
pressure, impulse, vulnerability of persons, and the
structural damage with the distance R0 . It should be
noted that R0 is the distance from the congested area
edge. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the variation of the over-
pressure and impulse with distances, respectively. The
variation of vulnerability of persons (ear drum rupture
and death from lung hemorrhage) and structural dam-
age with distance is provided in Figures 3–5.
CONCLUSIONS
It is observed that the TNO ME method predicts
overpressure values significantly higher than BST
model at short distances. Nevertheless, a relatively
good agreement is achieved between the TNO ME
and BST models at longer distances. It is also
found out that the calculated vulnerabilities and
26 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE
structural damages—especially in short distan-
ces—with TNO ME are usually higher than with
BST.
LITERATURE CITED
1. J.S. Puttock, M.R. Yardley, and T.M. Cresswell,
J Loss Prev Process Ind 13 (2000), 419–431.
2. R.S. Cant, W.N. Dawes, and A.M. Savill, Annu Rev
Fluid Mech 36 (2004), 97–119.
3. W.P.M. Mercx and A.C. van den Berg, The explo-
sion blast prediction model in the revised CPR
14E (Yellow Book), Process Safety Prog 16 (1997),
152–159.
4. A.C. Van den Berg, J Hazard Mater 12 ( 1985),
1–10.
5. A.C. Van den Berg and A. Lannoy, J Hazard
Mater, 34 (1993), 151–171.
6. A.C. Van den Berg and N.H.A. Versloot, J Loss
Prev Process Ind 16 (2003), 111–120.
7. J. Lobato, P. Cañizares, M.A. Rodrigo, C. Sáez,
and J.J. Linares, A comparison of hydrogen cloud
explosion models and the study of the vulner-
ability of the damage caused by an explosion of
H2, Int J Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006), 1780–1790.
8. AIChE, Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteris-
tics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and
BLEVEs, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
New York, 1994.
9. Q.A. Baker, M.J. Tang, E.A. Scheier, and G.J. Silva,
Vapor cloud explosion analysis, Process Safety
Prog, 15 (1996), 106–109.
10. A.J. Pierorazio, J.K. Thomas, Q.A. Baker, and D.E.
Ketchum, An update to the Baker–Strehlow–Tang
vapor cloud explosion prediction methodology
flame speed table. Process Safety Prog, 24 (2005),
59–65.
11. Q.A. Baker, M.J. Tang, E.A. Scheier, and G.J. Silva,
Vapor cloud explosion analysis, Proceedings of
the 28th AIChE Annual Loss Prevention Sympo-
sium on Risk Analysis and Process Safety Manage-
ment, Atlanta, GA, 1994.
12. M.J. Tang and Q.A. Baker, A new set of blast curves
from vapor cloud explosions, Proceedings of 33rd
AIChE Loss Prevention Symposium, Paper 29e,
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Hous-
ton, TX, March 14–18, 1999.
13. Q.A. Baker and W.E. Baker, Pros and cons of TNT
equivalence for industrial explosion accidents, Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference and
Workshop on Modeling and Mitigating the Conse-
quences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Mate-
rials, New Orleans, Louisiana, May, 1991.
14. D.J. Park and Y. S. Lee, A comparison on predic-
tive models of gas explosions, Kor J Chem Eng,
26 (2009), 313–323.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)