Operational Guidance

CONFIDENTIAL
Shell Global Solutions
Shell FRED
Fire, Release, Explosion, Dispersion
Hazard consequence modelling package
Operational Guidance
Shell Research Ltd.

P.O. Box 1, Chester CH1 3SH, England, Tel: +44 (0) 151 373 5000
Registered in England No. 539964, Registered office: 3 Savoy Place London WC2R 0DX
Shell Global Solutions is a trading style used by a network of technology companies of the Royal
Dutch/Shell Group
Shell FRED Operational Guidance
Document Update History
Issue Date Author Description

1.0 November 2001 Tim Cresswell Original version for FRED 3.2
2.0 April 2004 Tim Cresswell Update to FRED 4.0
3.0 August 2010 Lee Phillips Update to FRED 6.0
Ownership and copyright of this work is vested in Shell International Petroleum

Company Limited.
This is a CONFIDENTIAL document. Any distribution beyond the parties listed

must be authorised by through the owner/custodian who is acting on behalf of Shell
International Petroleum Company Limited. Reference to this document should only
be made in documents having the same, or higher, security classification.
Neither the whole or any part of this document may be reproduced, stored in any
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent
of the copyright owner.
August 2010 Document Update History 1

Table of Contents
Document Update History 1
Table of Contents 2
Introduction 8
Document Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 8
FRED Scenario's ........................................................................................................................ 8
Shell Models 11
Generalised Release Model ...................................................................................................... 11
Background ................................................................................................................ 11
Publicly Available Reports ........................................................................................ 11
Experimental and Scientific Basis ............................................................................. 11
Validation .................................................................................................................. 11
Range of Fully Confident Applicability ..................................................................... 12
Range of Confident Extrapolation ............................................................................. 12
Range of Doubtful Applicability................................................................................ 12
Range Not To Be Used .............................................................................................. 12
Unique Features ......................................................................................................... 12
Transient Adiabatic Release Software (TARS) ........................................................................ 13
Background ................................................................................................................ 13
Validation .................................................................................................................. 13
HEGADAS-S ........................................................................................................................... 15
Background ................................................................................................................ 15
Validation .................................................................................................................. 16
Pool and Tank Fire Models ...................................................................................................... 17
Background ................................................................................................................ 17
2 Table of Contents April 2010

Validation .................................................................................................................. 18
Range of Fully Confident Applicability..................................................................... 18
Range of Doubtful Applicability ............................................................................... 18
Trench Fire .............................................................................................................................. 19
Background ............................................................................................................... 19
Validation .................................................................................................................. 19
Range of Fully Confident Application ....................................................................... 19
Gas Jet fire model .................................................................................................................... 20
Background ............................................................................................................... 20
Validation .................................................................................................................. 21
LPG 2 Phase Release and Jet Fire............................................................................................ 21
Background ............................................................................................................... 21
Validation .................................................................................................................. 22
Pipeline Blowdown .................................................................................................................. 22
Background ............................................................................................................... 22
Validation .................................................................................................................. 23
Two Phase blow down ............................................................................................................. 23
Background ............................................................................................................... 23
Validation .................................................................................................................. 24
Pressure Relief Valve model .................................................................................................... 25
Background ............................................................................................................... 25
Validation .................................................................................................................. 25
Combustion Hazards in Compartments (CHIC) ....................................................................... 26
August 2010 Table of Contents 3

Background ................................................................................................................ 26
Validation .................................................................................................................. 27
Temperature Rise Model .......................................................................................................... 28
Background ................................................................................................................ 28
Validation .................................................................................................................. 29
Heat-up..................................................................................................................................... 29
Background ................................................................................................................ 29
Validation .................................................................................................................. 30
Shell BLEVE ........................................................................................................................... 31
Background ................................................................................................................ 31
Validation .................................................................................................................. 32
Unique Features ......................................................................................................... 32
CAM 2 Explosion .................................................................................................................... 32
Background ................................................................................................................ 32
Validation .................................................................................................................. 33
Shell Code for Overpressure Prediction in gas Explosions (SCOPE) ...................................... 34
Background ................................................................................................................ 34
Validation .................................................................................................................. 35
Receiver ................................................................................................................................... 35
Background ................................................................................................................ 35
Validation .................................................................................................................. 36


Supporting models 37
Background .............................................................................................................................. 37
Droplet, Atomisation and Rainout model (DARE) .................................................................. 37
Background ............................................................................................................... 37
Validation .................................................................................................................. 38
Transient Pool Model .............................................................................................................. 38
Background ............................................................................................................... 38
Validation .................................................................................................................. 39
Sub Sea Release ....................................................................................................................... 40
Background ............................................................................................................... 40
Publically Available Reports ..................................................................................... 40
Validation .................................................................................................................. 41
Aeroplume ............................................................................................................................... 41
Background ............................................................................................................... 41
Validation .................................................................................................................. 42
PGPlume .................................................................................................................................. 43
Background ............................................................................................................... 43
Validation .................................................................................................................. 44
Generalised Jet Fire Model ...................................................................................................... 44
Background ............................................................................................................... 44
Validation .................................................................................................................. 45


LFL / UFL Calculations ........................................................................................................... 45
Background ................................................................................................................ 45
Validation .................................................................................................................. 46
Liquid Pool Formation (steady state) ....................................................................................... 46
Background ................................................................................................................ 46
Validation .................................................................................................................. 47
Release Noise ........................................................................................................................... 47
Background ................................................................................................................ 47
Validation .................................................................................................................. 48
Flame Stability ......................................................................................................................... 48
Background ................................................................................................................ 48
Validation .................................................................................................................. 49
Flame Impingement.................................................................................................................. 50
Background ................................................................................................................ 50
Validation .................................................................................................................. 50
Custom Fluids .......................................................................................................................... 51
Background ................................................................................................................ 51
Validation .................................................................................................................. 51
Non Shell Models 52

Overview.................................................................................................................................. 52
Vessel Burst ............................................................................................................................. 52
Background and references........................................................................................ 52
Validation and Range of Applicability ...................................................................... 53
TNO BLEVE ........................................................................................................................... 53
Background and References ...................................................................................... 53
TNO Multi-Energy................................................................................................................... 53
TNT Explosion ........................................................................................................................ 54
TNO Gaussian Instantaneous ................................................................................................... 54
TNO Gaussian Continuous ...................................................................................................... 54
TNO Gaussian Non Boiling Pool ............................................................................................ 54

Introduction
Document Purpose
This document details the scientific and experimental basis of the Shell
models as implemented in the Shell FRED program. It cites the available
publications detailing the science, modelling and validation. It provides
information on the applicability of the model and the areas where they can and
cannot be successfully applied.
FRED Scenario's
The FRED program has a total of 25 hazard scenario's of which 18 are Shell
based models and 7 are from other sources. Within the Shell release
scenario's, more than one model has been implemented and these
automatically "link" together (if appropriate) to provide calculations on the
different aspects of the hazardous release.
8 Introduction April 2010

Shell Scenario's Description

Pressurised Release Generalised release model.
Unified Scenario Transient Adiabatic Release Software (TARS)
Pool and Tank Fire Pool and tank top fire models.
Trench Fire Fires in trenches
Gas Jet Gas jet release model.
LPG 2 PhaseRelease and Jet Fire LPG specific release and jet fire.
Gaseous Pipeline Blowdown Blow down of gas pipeline.
Two Phase Pipeline Blow Down Blow down of a pipeline
Pressure Relief Valve Pressure relief valve model.
CHIC Combustion Hazards in Compartments
Temperature Rise Impact of flame impingement on structures or vessels.
Heat-up Time to BLEVE for flame impinged vessels
Shell BLEVE Boiling liquid expanding vapour cloud explosion.
CAM Explosion. Explosion in congested but unconfined regions.
SCOPE Explosion Explosion in congested but confined regions.
HEGADAS-S Dense gas dispersion.
Non Shell Scenario's Description

Vessel Burst Bursting of a pressurised storage vessel
TNT Explosion Solid (High) explosive model (TNT)
TNO Multi-Energy Explosion Hydrocarbon explosion model.
TNO Gaussian Instantaneous Dispersion Catastrophic (instantaneous) release model
TNO Gaussian Continuous Dispersion Continuous release model
TNO Non Boiling Pool Dispersion Dispersion from a non boiling liquid pool
TNO BLEVE Boiling liquid expanding vapour cloud explosion
August 2010 Introduction 9

Support models Description Relief Pressurised Gas Jet Unified

valve release scenario Scenario
scenario scenario
Generalised release Generic release model  
model
Generalised jet fire Generic jet fire model   
model
Droplet, Atomisation and Droplet, Atomisation and 
Rainout model (DARE) Rainout model (DARE)
Transient Pool Formation Models the transient 
generation of pools
Sub Sea Release Model releases below sea 
LFL / UFL calculation Flammability    
calculations
Aeroplume Short range dispersion  
PGPlume Long range dispersion 
HEGADAS-S Heavy gas (liquid pool) 
dispersion
Pool formation Liquid pool formation 
(steady state)
Flame stability Stability of jet flames 
Flame impingement Flame spacial    
probability.
Custom fluids Multi-component Fluid  (Gas   (Gas 
Mixtures Only) Only)
Noise Release and combustion 
noise.
10 Introduction April 2010

Shell Models
Generalised Release Model
Background
This model is available in the pressurised release model
Model for calculating the steady-state mass flow of a fluid through a pipe or
orifice given the pressure, temperature and composition of the fluid prior to
the release. For flashing fluids the VLEOS package is used to calculate the
thermodynamic trajectory of the flashing path.
For liquids and two-phase fluids a simple non-equilibrium model for short
pipes (no flashing) is combined with a homogeneous equilibrium model for
longer full bore releases. Criterion for transition between non-equilibrium and
equilibrium flow based on residence time in pipe.
For gases, a Fanno flow calculation is performed.
Publicly Available Reports

None
Experimental and Scientific Basis

The model is based on a rigorous thermodynamic model. Only the criterion
for the switch between equilibrium and non-equilibrium flow has been derived
empirically.
Liquid or two-phase discharge through a pipe, homogeneous equilibrium
discharge model of Leung to give either critical or non critical flow. Friction
is modelled by calculating friction factor as a function of Reynold’s number
and surface roughness. For non-equilibrium liquid discharge (short pipes and
orifices) Bernoulli equation used. Gas discharge through orifice uses standard
equations for critical and non critical flow. Gas discharge along pipe
calculated by equations of Fanno flow.
Validation
Liquid releases: Propane from 2 to 45 kg/s and butane from 4 to 29 kg/s
successfully modelled. NB Butane also contained dissolved nitrogen - this
was modelled successfully.
Gas orifice releases: natural gas from 2 to 25 kg/s successfully modelled.
August 2010 Shell Models 11

Since the model is founded on rigorous thermodynamic analysis, rather than

being derived empirically, there is no size limit to the type of release that may
be modelled. The only constraint comes in the thermodynamics in terms of
looking at highly non-ideal gases and dense super critical fluids.
Range of Fully Confident Applicability

As the model is physically based, in principle, any size may be modelled.
Range of Confident Extrapolation

The model can only calculate the pressure drop and mass flow rate of either a
full bore pipe or an orifice. If there is a hole in a pipe smaller than full bore,
most of the pressure loss may be across the hole and not down the pipe. In
this case, the pipe should be treated as a de facto reservoir. In practice, the
steady state release rate though a hole in a pipe can never exceed steady state
full bore release rate.
Chemicals releases.
Range of Doubtful Applicability

Liquids which froth (undergo two phase swell) when instantaneously
depressurised.
For long pipelines (e.g. offshore) the flow rate will change continually as the
decompression wave heads away from the release point and transient models
are more suitable.
For long pipes there may be cases where there can be an appreciable frictional
loss in the pipe as well as a pressure drop across a non-full bore rupture. A
reasonable assessment of the steady state flow may be made by comparing the
flow rate for a full bore rupture in the pipe, with the flow through the actual
hole size for a zero length pipe and using the smaller of the two values. This
applies ONLY for steady state conditions
The model used for gases assumes that they are ideal, with a correction for
compressibility factor in the mass flow. In reality, there may be some
condensation of liquid drops from the gas. The model warns that this is
happening.
Range Not To Be Used

Should be used with care for highly non ideal gases and dense supercritical
fluids.
Unique Features
Criterion for transition from liquid equilibrium model to non-equilibrium
model based on residence time rather than pipe length (<0.0026s, non-
equilibrium calculation, 0.0026s, equilibrium calculation). Based on results
of liquid propane release experiments.
Model operates iteratively to test for critical or non critical flow conditions, to
update thermodynamic parameters describing flashing and to update Reynolds
number used for calculating friction contribution.
12 Shell Models April 2010

Transient Adiabatic Release Software (TARS)
Background
The Transient Adiabatic Release Software (TARS) has been developed to
predict a simplified blowdown of a pressurised vessel in order to assess the
consequences of such an event as a function of time. The blowdown of the
vessel is actually modelled as series of steady state release as the pressure in
the vessel is reduced.

Haque,M.A, Richardson,S.M, Saville,G.,
Chamberlain,G.,Shirvill,L"Blowdown of Pressure Vessels II. Computer
Model." Trans I ChemE, 70.Part B (1992): 10-17.

TARS is validated against a large number of steady-state release experiments
carried out by Shell Global Solutions, and agreement between predictions and
experimental release rates is very good.
A limited number of vessel blow down tests carried out by Shell Global
Solutions are also used to validate the TARS predictions for transient release
simulations.
TARS is also compared with the BLOWDOWN code developed by Imperial
College for one of these tests showing good agreement (Haque et al)
The basic assumptions used in modelling the vessel blowdown are:
• The transient flow inside the pipe and the choke are treated as steady
state release calculations during a short duration time step of blowdown
calculations.
• Negligible pressure gradients are assumed inside the vessel during the
blow down.
• The flow inside the pipe and the choke are assumed to be at
homogeneous equilibrium.
The pipe flow is assumed to be adiabatic, and expansion of the mixture as the
pressure drops along the pipe is isentropic. The homogeneous flow parameters
are initially calculated and stored in a lookup table by isentropic expansion of
the feed entering the pipe (vapour mixture for top release, and liquid mixture
for bottom release) to ambient pressure. Steady state flow equations inside the
pipe are solved by assuming that mixture properties change according to the
lookup table as the pressure drops inside the pipe.
Validation
Validation of TARS consists of two parts: validation of the steady state
release rate through the discharge pipe and the choke, and the validation of the
transient blowdown model that calculates the time-dependent variation of
contents of the vessel as the pressure is reduced to the ambient value.
Steady State
Steady state model as described above is validated against a wide range of
experimental data obtained by Shell Global Solutions over the years. The

details of the experiments are given in [4] that describes the GENREL release
model in FRED.
• Comparison of TARS predictions with large-scale propane release tests
carried out at Spadeadam test site by Hirst et al. in 1983.
• Large Scale Natural Gas Release, Bennet et al. (1991).
• Large-scale tests at Spadeadam with butane pressurised with nitrogen
gas, Davenport 1992.
• Small-scale experiments with air bubbling through water, Richardson
2006
Transient modelling
TARS is validated against the Pressure Vessel Blowdown[7] field trials at
Spadeadam in 1988. The tests selected for validation runs are:
• B-29 Nitrogen gas, 121 bara, top release, 0.010-m diameter orifice.
• N-40 70% natural gas and 30% propane, 121 bara, top release, 0.010-m
orifice.
• R-44 70% natural gas and 30% propane, 121 bara, bottom release,
0.010-m orifice.
O-41 70% natural gas and 30% propane, 82 bara, bottom release, 0.010-m
orifice.

TARS assumes adiabatic/isentropic simplification in all calculations, and heat
transfer into the vessel and adjoining pipe is ignored. This is usually a good
assumption for hazard scenarios where the vessel, pipe walls and the
inventory are assumed to be isothermal initially, and the latent heat source
during the phase change is much larger than any heat transfer in or out of the
vessel/pipe. These assumptions are considered to be valid for durations where
vessel contents undergo rapid phase transition.
Pipe lengths less than 6 m

Pipe lengths up to 10 m

If the vessel/pipe walls are not at the same temperature initially.
Pipe lengths greater than 10 m

TARS should not be used in conditions where the vessel or the pipe is subject
to any heat transfer such as flame impingement or long release durations
under intense solar radiation.
TARS should not be used for very large scale geometries such as a full bore
pipeline blowdown where shocks/rarefaction-waves play a major role.
TARS should not be used as a design tool for blowdown vessels because of
the limitations described above.

HEGADAS-S
Background
HEGADAS-S for steady state dispersion of dense gas clouds.

1. HGSYSTEM 3.0 User’s Manual, and Technical Reference Manual,
L. Post, www.hgsystem.com
2. H.W.M. Witlox, “The HEGADAS model for ground-level heavy-gas
dispersion. I: Steady-state model “, Atmospheric Environment, 1994,
v28, n18, p2917-32
3. Hanna, S.R., et al, Hazardous gas model evaluation with field
observations, Atmos. Environ., 27A, 2265-2285, 1993
4. Hanna, S.R., et al, Hazard response modelling uncertainty (A
quantitative method), Vol II, Evaluation of commonly-used
hazardous gas dispersion models, Sigma Research Corp., Concord
MA, 1991
5. Lazaro, M.A., K. Woodard, S.R. Hanna, D.J. Hesse, J.-C. Huang, J.
Lewis, and C.A. Mazzola, Model Review and Evaluation for
Application in DOE Safety Basis Documentation - Atmospheric
Dispersion Modeling Guidance for Chemical Accident Consequence
Analysis, ANL/EAD/TM-75, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Ill. (Sept. 97)
(http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=18)
6. J.S.Puttock, “The development and use of the
HEGABOX/HEGADAS dispersion models for hazard analysis”,
Presented at Int. Conf. On Vapour Cloud Modeling, Boston USA,
Nov 1987. Publ. in Proceedings of Conf., by AICHE, NY, USA.
1987. p317-341.
7. J.S. Puttock, G.W. Colenbrander, "Dense gas dispersion
experimental research", Heavy gas workshop, Toronto Canada Jan
1985
8. J.S. Puttock, G.W. Colenbrander, "Thorney island data and
dispersion modelling, symposium on heavy gas dispersion field trials
at Thorney Island, Health and Safety Executive, Sheffield England
April 1984.
9. J.S. Puttock, G.W. Colenbrander, D.R. Blackmore, "Maplin Sands
experiments 1980: Dispersion results from continuous releases of
refrigerated liquid propane and LNG NATO/CCMS Int Tech
Meeting on air polution modelling and its application, France Sept
1982.
10. G.W. Colenbrander, J.S. Puttock, G.W. Colenbrander, "Maplin sands
experiments 1980 interpretation and modelling of liquified gas spills
on the sea. IUATM symposium on atmospheric dispersion of heavy
gases and small particles Delft Aug-Sept 1983.
11. J.S. Puttock, G.W. Colenbrander, "Dense gas dispersion behaviour :
experimental observations and model developments 4th Int
symposium on Loss prevention in the process industries, Harrogate
England Sept 1983.

12. J.S. Puttock, GD.R. Blackmore G.W. Colenbrander, "Field

experiments on dense gas dispersion, Chem Eng monographs 16 :
Dense gas dispersion editors R.E. Britter and R.F. Grififiths, Elsevier
Press Amsterdam, 1982.
13. G.W. Colenbrander, A mathematical model for the transient
behaviour of dense vapour clouds 3rd Int. Symp. On loss prevention
and safety promotion in the process industries.
14. P.H.M. Te Riele "Atmospheric dispersion of heavy gases emitted at
or near ground level 2nd Int. Symp. On Loss prevention and safety
promotion in the process industries., Heidelberg 1977

HEGADAS was formulated after a great deal of experimentation mainly in the
early 1980s including the Maplin Sands releases of LNG and liquified
propane, and releases at Appleton.
HEGADAS started from a mathematical model developed by Ta Riele (1977)
for calculating ground-level plumes from the dispersion of steady state
releases. HEGADAS originally developed by Colenbrander (1980) for steady-
state and transient releases.
Validation
J.S. Puttock, “Comparison of Thorney Island data with predictions of
HEGABOX/HEGADAS”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, v16, 1987, p439-
445.
D.R. Blackmore, “Dispersion and combustion behaviour of gas clouds
resulting from large spillage's of LNG and LPG on the sea” Transactions of
the Institute of Marine Engineers (TM), vol.94, paper 29, 1982.

Non-reactive gases and aerosols directly from a pool source.
Stability A to F over land
Wind speeds 2 to 15m/s
Surface roughness <= 1 Metre
Averaging time <= 1 hour
Small to process scale releases (e.g. up to 50 Tonnes)

Usually down to 1.5m/s wind speed (but under most stable conditions watch
for plume width exceeding downwind distance)
Larger scale releases - though for very large scale releases it may be necessary
to take meterology into account (e.g. downwind distances over 5km) and
maybe the mixing layer depth (200 to 1000m) and it may also be necessary to
consider terrain or changes in roughness length.
Short time scale releases (though the steady state model will be conservative)
Up to 5Km for flat terrain.


Reactive gasses (including HF and EO. The HF specific thermodynamics are
not used by FRED 3.1) but will be included in FRED 4.
Violently boiling pools, where the vertical momentum from boiling may
vertically eject liquid and vapour increase the plume flux.
Dispersion over water - atmospheric stability classes A to F are for land, and
different stability occurs over water, also roughness length is wind speed
dependent.
Steady state assumptions fails as ratio Wind speed / release size tends to zero.

Long range pollutants (e.g. > 5-10km) and very large scale releases requiring
meterology.
Wind speeds < 0.5m/s
Pool and Tank Fire Models
Background
Burning pools of liquid hydrocarbons pose a threat of escalation to people and
nearby equipment through radiative transfer of heat and the possibility of
flame impingement Burning pools of refrigerated hydrocarbons (LNG, LPG)
were of particular concern because of their very luminous (high radiative
emission) flames. Fires on top of storage tanks were also of concern because
of the proximity of nearby tanks and potential for escalation. Finally, for some
liquids, e.g. Ethylene Oxide (EO) or Propylene Oxide (PO), one safe disposal
option is to drain to a safe containment area and burn as a pool fire.
As the observed behaviour of many different pool fires can be categorised into
a small number of equivalent fire types, FRED mimics this and maps the
available fuels onto one of the following fuels that have been experimentally
tested.
LNG, LPG, Gasoline, C3, C4, Kerosene, Diesel, Blue Flame (No soot).

1. Johnson, A.D., A model for predicting thermal radiation hazards
from large-scale LNG pool fires, TRCP.3390R3; 1 February 1992,
(a) presented at I.Chem.E. Symposium Major Hazards - Onshore and
Offshore UMIST Manchester, 20-21 October 1992; (b) publ.: Inst,
Chem Eng. Symp. Ser., 1992, v13, p507-57
2. Nedelka, J. Moorhouse and R.F. Tucker, "The Montoir 35m
diameter LNG Pool Fire experiments", TRCP.3148, presented at
LNG9 Nice Oct. 1989.
3. The hazards posed by large-scale pool fires in offshore platforms.
G.A. Chamberlain, Trans IChemE, Vol 74, part B may 1996 81-87


Large scale LNG pool fires from 2m to 35 m in diameter.
Refrigerated propane, LPG pool fires up to 20 m diameter.
Kerosene pool fires up to 20 m diameter.
EO and PO less than 1 m diameter.
Diesel 12m2, condensate 24m2.
For references to other large scale experiments used refer to “Modelling of
Thermal Radiation from External Hydrocarbon Pool Fires”, P.J. Rew, W.G.
Guilbert and D.M. Deaves, Trans IchemE, Vol 75, Part B, pp 81-89, May,
1997.
Validation
Most of the available experimental data has been used in the derivation of the
model. However, one comparison with new data has been made – Pool Fire C,
an 8.4 m diameter refrigerated butane pool fire. The predicted radiation levels
are lower than measured because the model Surface Emissive Power for
butane and propane falls of too quickly with pool diameter for small pool
diameters (< 10 m diameter) – See FRED 3.1 Technical manual Figure 4-2.
There is considerable scatter in experimental data (mainly due to variation in
wind conditions during an experiment). Model predictions and experimental
measurements differ typically by no more than 25%.
Some comparison has been made with large-scale incidents such as tank-top
fires and bund fires. Predictions were conservative. Model is conservative for
pool diameters greater than 50 m.

LNG 1 m to 50m diameter.
Heavy hydrocarbons with molecular weight > butane for 1m to 250 m.
Refrigerated butane, propane and LPG for 10 m diameter or greater.
Fuels that burn as clear flame, e.g. Methanol, ethanol etc., model over-
predicts for all pool diameters.

Up to 250 m diameter.

Area within about one tank diameter directly downwind of tank-top fire at or
below tank top height.
Some custom fluids in pressurised release scenario are not predicted to burn
as pool fires, when they would in reality.

Predictions not reliable within approximately 0.2-0.5 pool diameters of the
fire (flame impingement a possibility).

Trench Fire
Background
Burning liquid hydrocarbons in trenches (approximately rectangular pools
with aspect ratios greater than about 2:1) produce flame shapes and external
thermal radiation fields different from burning near circular pools (pools with
aspect ratios less than about 2:1).

1. Croce, P.A., Mudan, K.S., Wiersma, S.J., “Thermal radiation from
LNG trench fires”, Gastech 85, 11th Int. LNG;LPG Conf &
Exhibition, 12-15/11/85, Nice France, Vol 42 N 11, 1986.
2. Mudan, K.S., “Endview radiation from LNG trench fires”, Gas
Research Institute, 8600 Weat Bryn Mawr Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois 60631, GRI 86/0057, August 1985 - March 1986.
3. Rew, P.J., Hulbert, W.G., and Deaves, D.M., “Modelling of
thermal radiation from external hydrocarbon pool fires”, Trans
IChemE, Vol 75, Part B, pp 82-89, May 1997.

13 LNG trench fires described in references 1 & 2 above.
Trench lengths 4 – 53 m. Aspect ratios 5 – 30.
Flame is modelled as a wind tilted and dragged cuboid with flat rectangular
faces on the upwind, downwind and top surfaces and parallelograms on the
crosswind ends. Surface thermal emission is modelled as grey Lambertian
radiator. The model flame has two zones of surface emission, a lower clear
flame and an upper, partly obscured flame.
Validation
Comparison with data available from references [1] and [2]. There is
considerable scatter in experimental data (mainly due to variation in wind
conditions during an experiment). Model predictions and experimental
measurements differ typically by no more than 25%.
Range of Fully Confident Application

LNG > 1 m trench width. Trench length up to 100 m. Aspect ratios 2 to 30.
For other fuels model is likely to be as accurate as predictions described in
reference [3] above.

Up to 250 m length trenches.

Predictions not reliable within approximately 0.2-0.5 flame base lengths
downwind of the fire (intermittent flame impingement a possibility).


Aspect ratios less than 2:1. Pool fire model should be used instead .
Gas Jet fire model
Background
The jet flame model is based originally in a model dedicated to flare radiation
prediction in the early 1980’s. Since that the model has been modified to take
account of a larger range of gas flame conditions.

1. Chamberlain, GA (1987). "Developments in design methods for
predicting thermal radiation from flares", Chem.Eng.Res.Des. Vol.
65.
2. Johnson A.D., Brightwell H.M., Carsley A.J., August 1994, A model
for predicting the thermal radiation hazards from large-scale
horizontally released natural gas jet fires, Trans ICHEME, Vol 72,
Part B.
3. Kalghati, GT (1984) “Lift-off heights and visible lengths of vertical
turbulent jet diffusion flames in still air”, Comb. Sci and Tech., vol
41, 17-29
4. Kalghati, GT (1983) “The visible shape and size of a turbulent
hydrocarbon jet diffussion flame in a cross wind.”, Comb. And
Flame, vol 52, 91-106
5. Cowley, LT, and Pritchard, MJ (1990). “Large scale natural gas and
LPG jet fires and thermal impact on structures”, Gastech 90, 14th
Internation LNG/LPG Conference, Amsterdam.
6. Davenport, N (1994). “Large scale natural gas/butane mixed fuel jet
fires. Final report to the European Commission”, Shell Research
report no. TNER.94.030
7. Davenport, N (1994). “Large scale natural gas/kerosene mixed fuel
jet fires. Final report to the American Petroluem Inst.”, Shell
Research report no. TNER.94.061

Flare measurements on Leman platform, Brent C, Brent A, NAM onshore,
Spadeadam high speed flares. Laboratory experiments performed by
Kalghatgi, and natural gas and gaseous LPG flames at Spadeadam and at the
CIP jet fire test site.
Froude number correlation’s define the jet flame size, in terms of the
expanded jet properties assuming a convergent-divergent nozzle (adiabatic
reversible conditions). The flame radiation is calculated assuming the flame is
a solid body, the frustum is a cone, that radiates uniformly from it’s surface.
The flame surface emmissive power is derived from a correlation with the
expanded jet velocity and optical pathlength through the flame. The position
of the flame (frustum) in space takes account of the wind and jet momentum
and buoyancy. The radiation received takes into account the view factor of the
flame (frustum) and the transmission of radiation though the atmosphere.

Validation
Many of the experiments have been used to improve the correlation’s and so
are not appropriate for validation. There have been validation exercises
carried out by third parties and they report flare radiation comparisons to
within 10% accuracy.
Over the valid range the radiation prediction is accurate to 20%. The flame
length is accurate to about 10% and corresponds to 50% visible flame
occurrence.
The flame size has been tested against large scale accident reports where the
release rate was known with some confidence.

Gaseous hydrocarbon jet flames up to molecular weight 40 at pressures up to
200bar when the release rate is less than 10kg/s. Wind speeds up to 15m/s in
the direction of or normal to the release. Air temperatures up to 30C.

Best validated for hydrocarbons with a molecular weight < 60. Wind speeds
up to 30m/s in the direction of or normal to the release. Up to several hundred
bar and 150kg/s.

When a high speed wind blows directly into a horizontal flame. High humidity
conditions above 30C and fogs. Tends to underpredict radiation in the near
field region just upwind of the release. At very high release rates such as
greater than 300kg/s, there is no validation and it is suspected that the flame
shape may depart significantly from the frustum assumption, particularly for
horizontal or tilted jets.

When there is substantial liquid content in the jet. When the gas release is not
a hydrocarbon. (Gas releases only.)
LPG 2 Phase Release and Jet Fire
Background
Modelling followed a comprehensive experimental programme. The aim was
for an integrated model that calculates 2-phase LPG release rates, flame shape
and external radiation.

None


Based on the 3000 series of propane releases and 5000 series of butane
releases carried out at Spadeadam during the early 1990s.
The releases were generally nitrogen padded so that drive pressure was 1-2
bar above saturation pressure. Both full-bore and holes in pipes were
modelled.
Release modelling based on variation of homogeneous equilibrium model
with a simplified “2-phase” equation of state introduced by Leung and
Grolmes to close the equation set.
Correlations are used to construct the flame shape based on the Froude
number.
Radiation is based on a surface emitter models and calculation of the view
factor. Surface emissive powers are used (as a function of release rate) rather
than F-factors
Flame shape is constructed from 2 parts – a horizontal conical frustum
representing the jet momentum part of the release followed by a cylindrical
cone that lifts from the horizontal to represent the latter part of the flame that
burns similar to a pool fire.
Validation
Experimental data was used as scientific basis – no independent validation
undertaken model scatter better than +-20%.

Horizontal liquid LPG releases. The wind can be either in flame direction or
against it. No cross-wind is permitted.

< 250 kg/s used by anyone
Used with expert judgement > 250 kg/s and < 500 kg/s
> 500 kg/s should be regarded as a catastrophic release

Ground interaction effects have not been included in the model so in cases of
large releases close to the ground expert judgement should be exercised

Other fluids
Pipeline Blowdown
Background
Time dependent pipeline blow down model for use with gases only. The
model is a coding up and combination of three models that are available in the

public domain. (See below for references). As such the range of applicability
and validation of the model is not specified below.

1. Weiss et al, Oils and gas journal Dec- 12/1988/55- 58, JULY
10/1989/101
2. Bell, R.P. Isopleth calculations for ruptures of sour gas pipelines.
Energy Processing/Canada, July-August., 36 (1978)
3. TNO Yellow book, second edition 1992. The Dutch committee for
the prevention of disasters. Releases - Page 12.

Time dependent pipeline blow down uses three methods depending upon the
hole size relative to the pipeline size.:-
1. Hole area < 3 % of Pipe area : TNO model (Yellow book 2nd
Edition)
2. Between 3 and 30% Method by WEISS et. Al
3. Assume full bore rupture and use Bell Method (also quoted in Lees
3r Ed. 15/56)
Validation
See References

See References

See References

See References
Two Phase blow down
Background
A model for calculating the blow down or depressurisation of a multi-
component gas/liquid pipeline. The model is based on the time-dependent,
one-dimensional equations of mass, momentum and energy. It assumes
homogeneous (no-slip) and thermal equilibrium flow. The model can deal
with critical flow conditions.
Numerical solution of the resulting set of hyperbolic differential equations is
achieved using the Roe method.
The physical and thermodynamic flash properties of the fluid are pre-
calculated at the pipeline conditions and stored in a look-up table.

Predicts mass flow rate, temperature, density, pressure, vapour fraction.

None

The model has been developed and validated against a series of pipeline
depressurisation experiments undertaken at the B.P Isle of grain test site.
Steady state and transient propane releases from a 100m length of 2” and 6”
horizontal pipe were performed with varying pipe aperture sizes and shapes
were used.
In addition tests with water, nitrogen and liquefied Freon were performed to
characterise the pipeline. A number of ignited tests were also performed.
Pressures and temperatures and pipe inventory (as weight) were recorded at
various locations along the pipes length and neutron-back-scattering gauges
were used to measure the propane content.
The model has been developed from first principles starting from the
equations of mass, momentum and energy.
It is a one-dimensional model.
Uses two-phase flow assuming no-slip between the phases.
The two phases are treated together with an averaged mixture properties.
Thermal equilibrium is assumed to exist, and the thermodynamic state of the
fluid will follow the pressure and temperature without delay and both phases
have the same temperature.
The pipe is assumed to be horizontal.
No heat transfer to or from the pipe wall is considered
The physical properties of the fluid is based upon the PEPPER / VLEOS
thermodynamic package.
Correctly deals two-phase critical flow, instead of using a single-phase gas
formula.
An explicit method is used to solve the equations due to the presence of sharp
transitions – e.g. between an single-phase liquid and a two-phase state along
the pipeline.
Validation
The model has been validated against a series of pipeline depressurisation
experiments performed by Shell and B.P at Isle of Grain. Experiments in both
2”and 6” diameter horizontal pipelines of 100m length containing propane.
The model shows good agreement with the full bore releases, but has a
tendancy to underpredict the discharge rate for partial pipe openings during
the intial stages of depressurisation

Full bore releases from pipelines containing propane up to 100m length of
between 2 and 6 inch diameter at up to 20 bar pressure


The model has been developed from first principles and includes experimental
validation at a reasonable scale. It can in theory be applied to the majority of
realistic scenario’s where the HEM model is still valid.

For pipeline risers systems, the no-slip condition might not apply to the riser
part. For such systems it is suggested to include the multi-component and
energy balance features of the transient flow simulator TRAFLOW.

Pipelines containing fluids which consists of a large proportion of or wholly
gas. Flow regimes where the assumptions of the Homogeneous Equlibrium
Model (HEM) break down, e.g. where there is a large degree of slip between
the phases.
Pressure Relief Valve model
Background
Model for use with Gas/Vapour releases only. The selection of relief valve
determines the size of the orifice, the size of the stack is independent of this.
Additional models that are automatically linked are the dispersion suite
Aeroplume and PGPlume and the generic jet fire model

None

Jet fire see generalised jet fire model, Aeroplume and PGPlume pedigree
sheets
Two-stage modelling assumes
Choked flow through PRV restriction orifice which cools and slows down.
Then un-choked flow regime in the stack pipe, calculated on basis of exit
pressure.
The additional jet fire is based on the mass flow through the stack.
Validation
Jet fire - See generalised jet fire model.





Combustion Hazards in Compartments (CHIC)
Background
During the 1990’s two experimental programmes were conducted to
understand the behaviour of jet fires within compartments. These experiments
demonstrated that in addition to the well-known hazards of high heat fluxes,
there exit several potentially new hazards including external flaming,
increased smoke and CO levels. A physically based scientific model was
developed to model these properties to enable these hazards to be estimated at
steady state conditions and at a scale representative of offshore modules.

1. M.A Persaud, G.A Chamberlain, C Cuinier, “A model for predicting
hazards from large scale compartment jet fires” in Proceedings of
Hazards XIII Process Safety - the future, IChemE Symp Series 141,
p163-174, (1997)
2. 2. G.A. Chamberlain, Experimental study of large-scale
compartment fires (1994) Process Safety and Environmental Protection:
Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Part B, 72 (4),
pp. 211-219.

Two experimental programmes involving vertical jet fires within a
compartments (1) Large scale (135 m3) compartment – SINTEF and (2)
Small scale (33 m3) compartment – Buxton
The primary physical parameters pertinent to compartment fire behaviour
within CHIC include:
• Geometry/size of compartment, position and size of vents. The degree
of thermal insulation present on the boundaries.
• Type of fire (jet or pool) and fuel involved. (Only Jet fires are currently
enabled in FRED)
• Release conditions of fuel - mass flow rate, orifice/nozzle diameter or
pool diameter, flow regime, orientation of release for jet fire.
• Radiation and convection heat fluxes to impinged roof, walls and
objects. The radiation heat flux is closely linked to soot volume fraction and
flame chemistry, particularly the CO reaction kinetics in the smoke layer. The
convection heat flux can be treated in a similar fashion as for impinged
objects but is usually much lower than the radiation except where a jet fire
impinges directly. The amount of heat lost through the roof/walls depends on

the effective insulation present. This in turn affects internal temperatures and
therefore the combustion behaviour.
• The mass transfer from the fire feeding the smoke layer and losses to the
outside environment through vents are also important. The amount of air
present and available for combustion is the controlling factor in determining
the soot and CO production and the flammability of the smoke layer.
• Mitigating circumstances, such as passive fire protection coatings on
objects inside the compartment and/or on the roof and walls.
The most important physical processes include the dynamics of fuel release,
fuel combustion, mass transfer of complete and partial combustion products to
the outside through the vents, mass transfer of air into the compartment
through the vents, and the heat transfer involved in each of these processes.
These processes are not independent, but are coupled together such that a
change in any one process can have an immediate effect on all other processes
which in turn feeds back to the original process.
Validation
The steady state results predicted by CHIC were tested against programmes of
experiments carried out at two scales by Shell Research Ltd. One programme
was carried out by at large scale, in a 135 m3 insulated steel compartment
sited at the Norwegian Fire Laboratory, operated by SINTEF at Trondheim.
The second programme was at a smaller scale, in a 33 m3 uninsulated steel
compartment sited at the experimental facility at Buxton.
In both experimental programmes gaseous propane was used to generate
vertical jet fires at a number of release heights within the compartments. And
the smoke and flame lengths measured through 1 or 2 vents set at different
heights.

CHIC is a physically based model and should give good agreement when
modelling vertical hydrocarbon jet fires within compartments with a volume
of 33 – 135 m3.

The model within CHIC should be applicable for compartments with a volume
larger than 135 m3

If the heat loss exceeds heat production, the smoke layer may cool sufficiently
for its density to fall below that of ambient air. If this occurs the fire may be
burning in an unstable regime and could be extinguished resulting in an
explosion hazard. Within CHIC the buoyancy is maintained to ensure that this
does not occur and the user is warned.
If the fuel mass flow rate is insufficient to enable the flame to impinge on the
ceiling, then:
(1) The temperature of the smoke layer may fall below the initial ambient
temperature - similar to the case where the flame may extinguish above.

(2) The zone model in CHIC artificially forces a small area of the ceiling to
be impinged – in this case all temperatures and heat flux values for roof
region 1 should be treated with caution.
If the ceiling jet is longer than either the length or width of the ceiling, the
area of the roof in direct contact with the smoke layer may be small and
again the corresponding heat fluxes and temperatures for roof region 2
should be treated with caution

Other fuels not available within Gas Jet Scenario
More than 10 vents
Temperature Rise Model
Background
The temperature rise scenario is capable of predicting the thermal response of
an structure during fire attack. The fire in question can be a jet fire or pool
fire, impinging or just radiating onto the surface.

1. M.A. Persaud, C.J. Butler, T.A. Roberts, L.C. Shirvill and S. Wright,
Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, 10th
Int Symposium (2001), “Heat-up and failure of Liquefied Petroleum
Gas storage vessels exposed to a jet fire”
2. M.A. Persaud, L.C. Shirvill, A.Gosse and J.Evans Emissivity
measurements of steel exposed to a jet fire. Eurotherm on heat
transfer in radiating combusting systems 2. Saluggia, Italy 5-7
October 1994.
3. L.C. Shirvill. Performance of passive fire protection in jet fires.
IChemE 130,pages 111-122.
4. J.F. Bennett, T Cotgreave, L.T. Cowley and L.C. Shirvill, Shell
Offshore Flame Impingement Protection Programme, Part 1 :
Program and test description
5. Part 2 : Performance of mandolite 550 coated specimens
6. Part 3 : Performance of Chartek Type III coated specimens
7. R.F. Cracknell, J.N. Davenport and A.J. Carsley, A model for the
heat flux on a cylindrical target due to the impingement of a large
scale natural gas jet fire. IchemE symp. 139 pp161 - 175

Heat transfer between the fire and outer surface of the surface by radiation and
convection.
Heat transfer through the vessel walls (outer coating plus underlying steel) by
conduction.
See publications for further details.

Validation
See heatup report & external report

See heatup report & external report

All credible fires and spherical/cylindrical structures/tanks up to about 10m
diameter, any orientation.

Above 10m diameter

Above 20m diameter
Heat-up
Background
Model for predicting the thermal response of an LPG Vessel and its contents
to fire attack upto the point of vessel failure (BLEVE). The fire can be either a
jet or pool, impinging or radiating onto the vessel surface. The vessel is
assumed to be thin walled low carbon steel, which may have an exterior
coating. The passive fire protection parameters are as used in the FRED
temperature rise scenario.
The model simulates the effects of all heat and mass transfer processes into
both the liquid and vapour spaces of the vessel and the opening and closing of
pressure relief valves.

1. M.A. Persaud, C.J. Butler, T.A. Roberts, L.C. Shirvill and S. Wright,
Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, 10 th
Int Symposium (2001), “Heat-up and failure of Liquefied Petroleum
Gas storage vessels exposed to a jet fire”
2. M.A. Persaud, L.C. Shirvill, A.Gosse and J.Evans Emissivity
measurements of steel exposed to a jet fire. Eurotherm on heat
transfer in radiating combusting systems 2. Saluggia, Italy 5-7
October 1994.
3. L.C. Shirvill. Performance of passive fire protection in jet fires.
IChemE 130,pages 111-122.
4. J.F. Bennett, T Cotgreave, L.T. Cowley and L.C. Shirvill, Shell
Offshore Flame Impingement Protection Programme, Part 1 :
Program and test description
Part 2 : Performance of mandolite 550 coated specimens
Part 3 : Performance of Chartek Type III coated specimens

5. R.F. Cracknell, J.N. Davenport and A.J. Carsley, A model for the
heat flux on a cylindrical target due to the impingement of a large
scale natural gas jet fire. IchemE symp. 139 pp161 – 175

HEATUP is based upon a series of 4, 2 tonne LPG tank BLEVE experiments,
carried out by the UK HSE (See data reports above).
The model recognises there will be different sub zones within the liquid space,
which it splits into four regions : The bulk at the bottom of the vessel in the
centre; a stratified liquid layer above the bulk liquid and below the gas space,
and two boiling regions down either side of the vessel.
A pressure relief valve, which may be either fully open, partially open or fully
shut and vapour releases are assumed to be chocked flow. The important
processes that are modelled are:-
Heat transfer between the fire and outer surface of the vessel in both liquid
and vapour spaces.
The effects of any fire protective coatings.
Heat transfer into the vessel fluids by predominantly radiation in the vapour
space and natural convection or nucleate boiling in the liquid phase.
Mass transfer from the bulk liquid or vapour to the outside through any holes
in the vessel, or through pressure relief valves.
Mass transfer within the liquid phase by flow of heated fluid into a stratified
“hot” layer above the bulk liquid. (the hot layer may or may not be stable)
Mass transfer between the liquid and vapour phases by evaporation.
Pressure, enthalpy and composition, changes in the fluids during the above
processes.
Catastrophic failure of the vessel and possible BLEVE.
Uses VLEOS and Pepper database for fluid physical property modelling.
Validation
HEATUP has been validated against:-
Tests performed by the UK HSE of 2 tonne LPG storage tank subjected to Jet
Fires upto BLEVE.
Test performed by UK HSE of 5 tonne LPG storage tank subjected to pool
fires. On behalf of Shell and BG Ltd. Contract No 1245.2
Details of the model comparisons against experimental data are given in
reports. See references above for details.

Within experimental data set. 2 Tonne LPG storage vessels with commercial
grade LPG with liquid fill levels between 20 and 85%.

All credible fires and spherical/horizontally cylindrical LPG tanks up to about
10m diameter.


Spheres and tanks above 10m diameter

Spheres and tanks above 20m diameter
Shell BLEVE
Background
Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion (BLEVE) is the determining
hazardous event for flammable liquids stored at high saturation pressure at
ambient temperature. Failure of the vessel wall causes decompression and
explosive flashing of a proportion of the liquid to gas, giving a large
flammable cloud containing droplets of liquid.

1. S.R. Shield, AIChE/ASME National Transfer Conference, Atlanta,
Georgia, 8-11 August 1993
2. S.R. Shield, IChemE Conference, Major Hazards Onshore and
Offshore II, October 1995

The understanding of the fireballs was previously limited, and there were
significant discrepancies between the predictions of various models, all of
which were based on experiments at exceedingly small scale (a few
kilograms).
CEC and JIP sponsored 2 tonne LPG BLEVE experiments were carried out
1987 - 1990 to resolve the physics. Significant variations in fireball size,
radiation profile and lifetimes were observed as initial conditions were varied.
The experimental reports are :-
1. Johnson, D.M., M.J. Pritchard, (1991) Large Scale Experimental
Studt of Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosions (BLEVE's).
MRS E 211, Published by British Gas PLC, Solihull, UK, Session
3, Paper 3.3 15pp.
2. Johnson D.M., M.J. Pritchard and M.J. Wickens, (1990) Large
Scale catastrophic releases of flammable liquids. Commission of
the European Communities report EV4T.0014.UK(H).
3. Johnson D.M., M.J. Pritchard and M.J. Wickens, (1990) Large
Scale catastrophic releases of flammable liquids. Appendices C to I
Commission of the European Communities report
EV4T.0014.UK(H).
A physically based model was developed where all the physical phenomena
(vapour cloud development, generation of blast waves, fireball development
and extinction) are ties into a fundamental turbulence parameter. This
parameter correlated to give very satisfactory agreement between prediction
and all experimental observations ever made.

Validation
The scientific theory was peer-reviewed and published. Subsequently the
methodology has been reviewed extensively and approved by the French
research institute INERIS. Later 2 tonne BLEVE experiments by the UK HSE
have been successfully modelled.
The model was successfully tested against videos of the Crescent City, the
Cairnes and Mexico City incidents.

Radiation and blast waves from up to 2 tonne BLEVEs are accurately
predicted (to within 20%) for Propane, Butane, LPG mixtures and Propylene.

Hot BLEVEs of Propane, Butane and LPG up to full scale.

Cold BLEVEs. Overpressures from spheres.

Other fuels (Restricted within FRED 3.1 to those used experimentally).
Ovepressures inside the fireball.
Unique Features
If very large inventories or low initial pressures are input, then the “Cold
BLEVE” phenomenon is modelled as a fireball followed by a pool fire. Cold
BLEVEs have been observed at very large scale, but only scientifically
investigated at small scale. Predictions from the model are consistent with
large scale cold BLEVEs such as the Mexico City incident.
CAM 2 Explosion
Background
Unconfined (but congested) vapour cloud explosions.

1. A.T. Cates (1991), A non-specialist guide to semi-confined vapour
cloud explosions. Int. Conference on Fire and Explosion Hazards:
Energy Utilisation, May 1991
2. J.S. Puttock (1995), Fuel gas explosion guidelines - The Congestion
Assessment Method, Major Hazards Onshore & Offshore II, IChemE
Symposium Series 139, 267-275, 1995.
3. J.S. Puttock (1999) Improvements in guidelines for prediction of
vapour cloud explosions" Intl. Conf. And Workshop on Modeling

the Consequences of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials,

San Francisco, Sept. - Oct. 1999.
4. P. Snowdon (1999) Critical design of validation experiments for
vapour cloud explosion assessment methods. Intl. Conf. And
Workshop on Modeling the Consequences of Accidental Releases of
Hazardous Materials, San Francisco, Sept. - Oct. 1999.
5. J.S. Puttock (2001) Developments in the Congestion Assessment
Method for the prediction of vapour-cloud explosions. 10th. Intl.
Symposium Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process
Industries, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2001.

For full details of the Experimental basis See Section 2.1 in ref. [3] or [5].
For scientific basis see ref. [2] and [3] or [5].
To summarise, the model is a correlation of large number of experiments for
source overpressure, with an understanding of mechanism of flame
acceleration determines effective source radius. Detailed computations, using
accelerating piston derived from MERGE experiments, used to determine
pressure decay.
Validation
Experimental data are needed to develop a suitable correlation. The following
experiments have been used :-
The MERGE experiments. Here the congestion comprised a mesh of
cylinders oriented in all three co-ordinate directions and intersecting with
experiments being performed at three scales upto 9m3.
The DISCOE trials used vertical cylinders arranged in semicircles. A rigid
vertical wall was used so that the semicircular experiment simulated what
would occur in a full circle. Further experiments of this type were performed
at our Buxton site. The rig then had a solid roof one metre from the ground,
and straight grids of vertical cylinders were used in a square arrangement.
See figs. 1 to 3, 8 and 9 in ref. [2], and sections 2.1, 2.4, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.7 in
refs. [3] or [5] for full details.

Congested but mostly unconfined industrial plant (with or without roof). Note
comments on accuracy Section 5 of refs. [3] or [5].
The accuracy of predictions from the simple correlations in methods such as
CAM is, of course, limited. The goodness of fit of the correlations to the
experimental data can be seen in the references above, but most predictions
are within a factor of two of the observations. However, it should be noted
that these results are from idealised experiments. Any real plant does not have
well-defined rows of obstacles of equal blockage, and so there is additional
uncertainty arising from the need to idealise the real layout into equivalent
regular rows. In addition, it should be remembered that the correlations were
fitted specifically to the data shown in the Figures.

Experimental data extend over a wide range of scales up to 9m x 9m x 4.5m.
Larger scales are extrapolation, but problems not expected.


There can be limited regions with significantly higher overpressure than the
general overpressure generated in a congested region. In experiments which
produce low overpressures, up to a few hundred millibars, measurement
usually show little variation of pressure with location. But, as the overpressure
increases, the peak-to-mean ratio increases also. The “hotspots” can be
caused by:
a) waves from pressure generated at two different locations happening
to meet and constructively interfere at some location;
b) pressure wave reflection if there are surfaces of significant area in
the congested region;
c) localised auto-ignition.
These hot-spots are not modelled by CAM.
CAM models a hydrocarbon deflagration of which almost all gas cloud
explosions are. A detonation is supersonic and self-sustaining, and, once
initiated, will continue to propagate at the same speed even through an
unconfined, uncongested cloud. This is NOT modelled by CAM, neither is the
transition to detonation.
For more information on these areas, i.e - localised overpressure peaks can be
much higher than average value predicted see (Section 3.9, ref. [3] or [5]).
And transition to detonation see (Section 3.8, ref. [3] or [5]).

Where there is significant confinement by walls etc., or where a sub-area is
confined to form a “bang-box”
Shell Code for Overpressure Prediction in gas

Explosions (SCOPE)
Background
One dimensional Phenomological model.
Uses 5 differential equations to track key parameters

Prediction of vapour cloud explosions using the SCOPE model. OPTP.?; J.
Loss Prev. Proc. Industries v13 n3-5, pp,419-431

Based on Shell experiments performed at Buxton:
Small box experiments D,E,F,S Series.
Large scale SOLVEX experiments.
Quarter scale rig test series P01 - P14.
Harrison and Eyre Bang Box experiments.
Third Party experiments

DnV 35m3.
British Gas experiments in confined spaces.
Joint industry Explosion tests.
Joint industry explosion tests with Deluge.
Validation
Confidential

Model prevents user obtaining answers outside of range of applicability.

Model prevents user obtaining answers outside of range of applicability,
warnings are given when results are extrapolated

Model prevents user obtaining answers outside of range of applicability

Model prevents user obtaining answers outside of range of applicability
Receiver
Background
Radiation from Pool and jet fires based on experimental work for appropriate
models. Values calculated by linked scenario and passed to receiver.
Overpressure decay based on the explosion science developed for CAM
Radiation effects on people based on., F.P. Lees, the assessment of major
hazards: A model for fatal injury from burns., Trans IChemE, Vol 72, Part B.
August 1994, pp127-134. And Eisenburg N.A., Lynch C.J. and Breeding, J.R.
1975, Vulnerability model: A simulation system for assessing damage from
marine spills, Rep CG-D-136-75 (Enviro Control, Rockville, M.D. USA)
R. McMurray, Flare radiation estimated, Hydrocarbon processing, 175-181
November 1982.
Human response to overpressure Lees 17/237 equation 17.38.1. and 17.38.2
Lung Heamorrhage Lees 17/238 Equation 17.38.3
Framed building response Lees 17/202, equation 17.32.38
A description of explosion damage as function of overpressure text is largely
taken from FRED manual (Mercx) with additional material from Lees
17/201, table 17/43 (Clancey)
Effects on equipment to explosion overpressure and the Glass window
breakage model is based on a TNO model Reference - Mercx W.P.M., De
uitwerking van explosie-effekten op constructies, PML 1988-C-74, Juni 1988.

The formulation used is described in the FRED 3.1 Technical guide. (TNO
Green book pp 53-60)

See Pool Fire, CAM, Gas Jet Fire, Generalised Jet fire references. Radiation
dose - See FRED 3.1 Technical Guide.

Explosion pressure decay based on experimental validation of the CAM
model. (see CAM scenario above)
Radiation attenuation based on experimental work for Jet fires, pool fires, see
Pool Fire, Gas Jet Fire, Generalised Jet fire references above.
Validation
See :- Pool Fire, CAM explosion, Gas Jet Fire and Generalised Jet fire models.

See :- Pool Fire, CAM explosion, Jet Fire and Generalised Jet fire models.




Supporting models
Background
These models are not available within FRED as standalone scenario's but as
supporting models within other scenario's. They are normally run
automatically and the user is unaware in many ways that they are actually
individual models. As with the main scenario's each has been validated and
has supporting documentation as detailed in the sections below.
Droplet, Atomisation and Rainout model (DARE)
Background
In assessing the consequences of accidental release of liquid hydrocarbons
that may or may not flash in ambient conditions it is necessary to know how
much of the liquid droplets evaporate and disperse as a vapour plume, and
how much forms a liquid pool on the ground.
DARE predicts this phenomena and also how far away from the release point
the liquid pool is located. These predictions may then be passed on to
dispersion or pool spread models to assess additional risks.
DARE is extended to multi component mixtures using VLEOS.
This model is automatically run from the Pressurised Release Scenario.

Non published.

The model for the atomisation of the liquid jet is based on empirical
correlations derived from limited experimental data. This is formulated and
reported by P. J. Bowen and A. Maragkos. “Flammability hazards posed by
pressurised releases of high-flashpoint liquids”. Mistex Final Report. 2000.
Cardiff School of Engineering.
August 2010 Supporting models 37

Validation
DARE is validated primarily against the extensive set of experimental data
reported by CCPS. D. W. Johnson and J. L. Woodward, In RELEASE A
model with data to predict aerosol rainout in accidental releases. Center for
Chemical Process Safety of the AICHE., 1999.

Single-phase liquid release at the nozzle.
D/Dmax<1.0
0.0025-m<Hole Size<0.013-m.
Superheat temperature difference =0oC

Single-phase liquid release at the nozzle.
D/Dmax<1.75
0.0025-m<Hole Size<0.013-m.
Superheat temperature difference =0oC

Superheat temperature difference <50oC
Hole Size>0.013-m

Two-phase release at the nozzle.
D/Dmax>1.75
Superheat temperature difference >50oC
Transient Pool Model
Background
Transient pool modelling formed part of the HSYSTEM suite of programs, by
using the Exxon copyright LSM90 model. Due to the Exxon ownership this
could not be accommodated within FRED, and so a simple steady state model
was incorporated. The new pool model described here was coded from
scratch, with the intention of providing a next generation model that was
quicker and faster than CFD, but more versatile than LSM90.
This model is automatically run from the Unified Scenario.

Non published
38 Supporting models April 2010


Much of the pool model is based on externally published work, which is in
turn supported by externally published experimental data. However one area
of concern was the rate of spread of spilled LNG, and so experiments were
carried out at Spadeadam spilling up to 1m3 of liquid nitrogen and LNG on
concrete and sand.
The pool spread is based on gravity-inertial spreading, with viscous drag from
the substrate, and turbulent energy dissipation. Initial momentum of the liquid
arriving in the pool is not modelled, and the limiting spread of the pool is
governed by terrain roughness rather than by surface tension. The terrain is
represented by a 2D mesh, and differences in hydrostatic head drive the flow.
Although the model can handle complex terrain, the current FRED
implementation restricts this to bunds. The modelling domain is auto-
expanding should the pool reach the edge of the domain.
Evaporation is based on standard correlations (see TNO yellow book), and
there is a fully detailed heat balance for the pool, and fully thermodynamics
property tracking using Multiflash.
For a boiling pool the boiling rate is dictated by excess heat, and full
allowance is made for the effect of the boiling mode (film, nucleate or
intermediate). Heat flux from the substrate is a function of the time each cell
has been covered, and so is on a cell by cell basis. Where the boiling mode
limits the heat flux from the substrate below the standard heat transfer
relationship for a semi-infinite solid, then the exposure time for that cell is
adjusted accordingly.
Validation
The validation of the model can be sub-divided into the spreading and the
evaporation or boil-off. Spreading validation has been against water and LNG
spills experiments, as well as some comparison with existing models (e.g. the
Webber model). The rate of evaporation has been validated against
experimental data for evaporation trays, using the bunding feature, so that
spreading is not an issue. The code uses standard correlations, as documented
in the TNO Yellow Book 1997 (though a few of the equations had to be
corrected due to typographical errors).

The model should give a good representation where the pool is coherent, and
the chemical species obey Raoult's law. Accuracy will inevitably be limited by
our ability to exactly determine the wind conditions, the release rate, and even
the substrate.

Although not tested for hot releases, the model should perform perfectly
adequately where the substrate is cooling the liquid rather than heating it.

Large high momentum releases : The pool may spread more in the direction of
the momentum.
Multiple liquid phases : If there is more than one liquid phase, the model
assumes the two liquid phases are intimately mixed - which may well be true

in the initial stages of a release. If the pool were to settle in a bund, then the
model would underestimate the vapour rate.
Non-coherent pools. The assumption of uniform composition and temperature
in the pool, is a weak assumption where the pool may split - e.g. when a bund
is overtopped leaving a deep pool within the bund, and a shallow spill outside.
The model is not able to deal with them as separate pools. The effect is
probably conservative, as the shallow pool will not be depleted in light ends
as fast as it should, and so its emissions will be overstated.

Non-ideal liquid mixtures where the species interact chemically - for example
sour water, ammonia solutions. In this case the partial pressure of the evolving
gas will depend on details like pH and presence of other species.
Sub Sea Release
Background
The sub sea release was developed to simulate releases from submerged gas
pipelines to calculate the size of the bubble radius, any effective loss of
buoyancy of shipping and the physical effects of any subsequent sea surface
fire. It is a steady state model.
The original model was improved for near surface releases. Improvements
were also made to the thermodynamics so it can be used with custom fluids.
Any components in a release that are liquid are assumed to be entrained in the
bubble plume and isothermal flash calculations are carried out at water
temperature so gas evolution can be modelled.
This model is automatically run from the Unified Scenario if sub-sea release
has been selected.
Publically Available Reports

None

Shallow Releases : Very limited small scale experimental work (see VM
Maksimov and EF Limar 2003) with suggested correlations for scale-up to
predict surface fountains, and breakthrough. Breakthrough, in particular,
needs larger scale experiments.
Data from literature of experimental under water releases have been collapsed
using local volume flow rate (previous collapses by authors had resulted in a
numerical model)
Small scale experimental releases of gas to e.g. 50m depth and a few Kg/sec
are all that is available in literature. Big releases (explosion of pockets) have
been recorded but no-one knows the release conditions. Scaling laws
asymptote at larger scale and this allows confidence in use. No reason to
doubt scaling until something better is done at large scale
When modelling a release from depth, then by the time the bubbles reach the
surface, the flow had dropped away dramatically. The bubble plume model is

for an established steady-state plume, so a best estimate has to be made of an

“established” mass flow rate, taking account of the rise-time.
A series of experiments of fires on water carried out at medium (10m) scale at
Winfrith.. Q* scaling is common and has been applied here.
Dispersion over the sea is very uncertain. The only available way to model
large area sources in these conditions is CFD. Lloyd’s Register made
predictions which have been collapsed to a general scaling.
Validation
Bubble plume – Small scale experimental data in literature upto 50m depth.
Surface fires - Medium scale (10m) fires on the sea experiments at Winfrith.
Sea surface dispersion – Validated against CFD runs for large area sources.

Only fully confident for established bubble plumes where water column
circulation is set up. Lack of gas dissolution should be conservative.

In transient plumes, where flow rate is dipping use bubble rise time based on
startup flow (See tech user guide)
Surface fountains and breakthrough are based on scale up from lab scale
experiments.

Initial “Burst” of bubbles

Should not be used to determine minimum release that can be seen on the
surface, as gas dissolution processes can have a significant effect on deep
releases.
Aeroplume
Background
Shell Research Jet dispersion model (HGSYSTEM 3.1 AEROPLUME model)
for jet releases including the release rate and momentum, phase change due to
flashing etc, aerosol formation, jet trajectory, and transformation to Gaussian
or heavy gas plume.

1. HGSYSTEM 3.0 User’s Manual, and Technical Reference Manual,
L. Post, www.hgsystem.com

2. Hanna, S.R., et al, Hazardous gas model evaluation with field

observations, Atmos. Environ., 27A, 2265-2285, 1993
3. Hanna, S.R., et al, Hazard response modelling uncertainty (A
quantitative method), Vol II, Evaluation of commonly-used
hazardous gas dispersion models, Sigma Research Corp., Concord
MA, 1991
4. Lazaro, M.A., K. Woodard, S.R. Hanna, D.J. Hesse, J.-C. Huang, J.
Lewis, and C.A. Mazzola, Model Review and Evaluation for
Application in DOE Safety Basis Documentation - Atmospheric
Dispersion Modeling Guidance for Chemical Accident Consequence
Analysis, ANL/EAD/TM-75, Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, Ill. (Sept. 97)

Largely developed from fundamental equations of state, the sources of which
are covered in the HGSystem technical reference, as is the aerosol calculation
algorithms.
See HGSYSTEM technical reference , plus Variation of the wind profile
power-law exponent as a function of surface roughness and stability.", Atm.
Env.13(1979) 191-194
Validation
The plume model's entrainment formulations have been checked out against
observed dispersion of bouyant (Peterson 1989) and dense (Hoot, Meroney
and Peterka 1973) (ideal) gases, and against (atmospheric) releases of liquid
propane gas (Cowley and Tamm 1988, McFarlane 1988). The two-phase
model Aeroplume has been validated using data of liquid propane releases
(Post 1994)
Petersen R.L.: Performance evaluation of integral and analytical plume rise
algorithms, JAPC 37(1987), 1314-1319.
Hoot T G, Meroney R.N. and Peterka J.A.: Wind tunnel tests of negatively
bouyant plumes; fluid dynamics and diffusion laboratory, Colorado State
University; distributed by National Technical Information Service, US
Department of commerce, Report PB-231-590, October 1973.
Cowley L.T. and Tam V H Y: Consequences of pressurised LPG releases: the
isle of grain full scale experiments, 13th Int. Conf. LNG/LPG conference and
Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 18-21, 1988
McFarlane K: Development of models for flashing two-phase releases from
pressurised containment; ECMI conference on the application of mathematics
in industry; Strathclyde University Glasgow, Scotland 28-31 August 1988.
Validation includes plant scale releases.

For vapour jet releases of non-reactive gases, and for two phase releases of
superheated species where there is substantial superheat (e.g. > 20'C)

Two-phase releases of lower superheat, but check the enthalpy calcuation
difference between aeroplume and vleos is not causing substantial differences
in the gas/liquid balance and hence density and exit velocity


AEROPLUME can give numerical difficulties for jets aimed at the ground.
AEROPLUME results suspect for releases at a height < 1m above ground
AEROPLUME within FRED does not include behaviour of reactive gasses
(e.g. HF, EO….)
Differences between the enthalpy calculations in FRED and Aeroplume can
lead to incorrect calculation of liquid fraction, density and exit velocity in
flashing releases with low superheat.

Large vertical releases which could penetrate an atmospheric inversion layer.
Aeroplume does not model the form of meterology.
In complex terrain or congested regions.
PGPlume
Background
Shell Research Gaussian plume model (HGSYSTEM 3.1 PGPLUME model).
Gaussian non-buoyant plume model developed to complement the steady-state
heavy gas plume model HEGADAS-S in the HGSYSTEM suite of models.
Normally automatically run from the Aeroplume model for source terms.

HGSYSTEM 3.0 User’s Manual, and Technical Reference Manual, L. Post,
www.hgsystem.com

Based an accepted Guaussian plume observations in the open literature
The dimensioned correlation for the Monin-Obukhov length L (m) expressed
as a function of the user-specified surface-roughness ZR (m) and
Pasquill/Gifford category CLASS (-) is taken from a proposal of Irwin J S,
"A theoretical variation of the wind profile power-law exponent as a function
of surface roughness and stability.", Atm. Env.13(1979) 191-194.
The horizontal transverse standard deviation for turbulent diffusion is
assumed to be identical to that in the downwind direction (Blewitt, Yohn, and
Ermak: "An Evaluation of SLAB and DEGADIS Heavy Gas Dispersion
Models Using the HF Spill Test Data"; International Conference on Vapour
Cloud Modeling; November 2nd-4th, Boston Marriott Cambridge,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987, Proceedings, pp56-80).
The Pasquill/Gifford correlation is taken from "Fundamentals of Air
Pollution", 2nd edition, Stern A C, Boubel R W, Turner D B, and Fox D L,
published by the Academic Press, London, 1984. The above reference also
gives a definition of the several stability classes in terms of wind-speed,
whether it be day or night, degree of "insolation", and extent of "cloud-cover.
The averaging time correlation is taken from Hanna S R, Briggs G A, and
Hosker R P: "Handbook on Atmospheric Diffusion", Technical Information

Center, US DOE, Report No. DOE/TIC-11223 (1982). A power law

correction of exponent 0.2 is used.
The averaging time correlation is constructed from the plume height
dependent "cut-off" correlation of Pasquill: "Atmospheric Dispersion
Parameters in Gaussian Plume Modeling. Part 2: Possible Requirements for
Change in the Turner Workbook Values", Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. EPA/600/4-
76/030B, June 1976..
The surface roughness correlation is that recorded by Hanna (1982) following
Smith (1973,1977) and Briggs amd MacDonald (1978). Reference Plate E J:
"Engineering meteorology", Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1982,
Chapter 10, Section 10.3.3.
Validation
Prairie Grass experiments - uses established correlations

Partial, within norm for dispersion models.

Upto 5km

Greater than 10km

Not to be used for plumes where buoyancy determines behaviour, where
excess momentum is present (i.e. jets), or where aerosol is present. Not to be
used for grounded plumes. These matching criterion are checked by the
release model and handover to PGPLUME will only occur if they are satisfied
Generalised Jet Fire Model
Background
A generalised jet fire model applicable to volatile liquids and 2 phase
releases.

None

Uses jet flame data from large scale experiments with natural gas,
kerosene/natural gas, two-phase propane, two-phase propylene, butane/natural
gas, crude oil/natural gas.
Uses the cone frustum representation as used in the gas flame model.

Flame length is based on mass release rate and heat of combustion.

Flame width and lift-off are based on Froude number and flame length.
Flame tilt is based on momentum correlation’s.
F factor is based on diameter and jet velocity.
Validation
All the data were used to derive the flame correlation’s. There are no
independent data available for the validation.
The experiment data are accurate to about 15%.
Most of the experiments were large scale and so are already in the middle of
the range for credible releases. The correlations were derived to extrapolate
towards sensible asymptotes.

Paraffinic hydrocarbon jet flames at release rates up to 30kg/s in co-flowing
or cross-winds up to 15m/s.

To high pressure releases of hydrocarbons in winds up to 30m/s.

When a high speed wind blows directly into a horizontal flame. High humdity
conditions above 30C and fogs. At very high release rates such as greater
than 300kg/s, there is no validation and it is suspected that the flame shape
may depart significantly from the frustum assumption, particularly for
horizontal or titled jets. When the flame produces copious smoke since soot
obscuration is not allowed for. In this case the model can be very conservative
and may overpredict the radiation by more than a factor of 2

LPG (use LPG model), natural gas jet flames (use gas jet flame model)
LFL / UFL Calculations
Background
LFL / UFL Calculations are linked to the pressurised release known pressure
and known mass flow rate scenarios only.
For flammability limits of long chain hydrocarbons LFL values have been
extrapolated.

None


Based on Le Chatelier's principle. Flammability limits for long chain
hydrocarbons have been extrapolated from available data.
Validation
Validation of FRED by cross check with hand calculations using Le Chataliers
rule.

For mixtures of gases containing less than 10% inert compounds

Not applicable

Where significant production of mists or droplets occur, as each droplet can
act as a fuel source with a plentiful supply of air. Unlike gases which are only
combustible within a relatively narrow range.

Mixtures with greater than 10% inerts
Liquid Pool Formation (steady state)
Background
The model is automatically run from the pressurised release scenario provided
the conditions for pool formation are met. It does not calculate liquid rain out
from a jet release, but is based upon inventory, process conditions and fluid
released. Pool evaporation rates calculated using Sutton's formulation. Pool
size based on pool type and inventory.

None

A liquid pool is formed when the following conditions are met - Superheat <
10degC and Vapour pressure < 0.99 bar
and vapour fraction < 1.0 (100%)
Three pool are formed
Boiling pool
Bubble point temperature at atmospheric pressure < ambient Temperature.
diameter = 1 m,

evaporation rate = release rate

pools burns and disperses
Evaporating pool
Diameter depends on release rate, liquid fraction, inventory and evaporation
rate
Evaporation rate calculated from vapour pressure using Suttons equation
Pool depth = 0.02, or 0.08 m (Viscosity dependent)
Pool can be flammable
Non evaporating pool
Diameter depends on liquid fraction and inventory.
No evaporation
Pool depth = 0.02, or 0.08 m (Viscosity dependent)
Pool can be flammable
Validation
See pool fire model for burning pool validation.

See pool fire models.



See pool fire models. High pressure releases where liquid is atomised and
disperses as an aerosol.
Release Noise
Background
The noise model is linked to the Gas Jet known pressure and known mass
flow rate scenario's, it models Jet, Shock and combustion noise.

None

Developed from high speed flare test in 6, 8 and 12 inch diameter flares in the
range 0.5 to 1.5 Mach in the expanded jet, in wind speeds up to 12m/s.
Jet mixing and Shock noise assumes that the jet is symnmetrical about its axis
and is based upon aircraft industry standards (Gas turbine jet exhaust noise

prediction ARP 876B, June 1978). The source of the shock is assumed to
occur at 6 diameters down stream of the hole.
The source of combustion noise is assumed to be the base of the flame, i.e. the
intersection of the jet and frustrum axis as predicted by the flame model and is
assumed to be isotropic.
Noise propagation makes an allow for air attenuation, wind direction and for
ground effects. No allowance is made for shielding by objects.
Validation
Predicted noise levels have been compared with experimental measurements
on high velocity flares of natural gas.
At low mach numbers the model tends to under predict the noise level by
about 2dbA in the near field < 20m and by 5 dbA in the far field ~ 60m.
For mach numbers in the range 0.7 to 1.1 the model tends to overpredict
slightly even if ground reflection is discounted
At high mach numbers > 1.1 it is recommended that the noise levels are
predicted without ground reflections and the result in dbA reduced by 5%.

Natural gas flares upto 12 inch diameter, wind speeds less than 12 m/s.

Predictions should be valid for all sonic jets in the normal range of interest,
say up to 200kg/s or 300 bar

Where the resulting dBA is greater than 120

In strong winds, upwind and downwind. Crosswind only.
In non-level topography
Flame Stability
Background
A flame stability map has been devised relating the different flame stability
regions as defined by the scaled gas velocity and the scaled wind speed.

1. Kalghatgi, GT, “Blow-out stability of gaseous jet diffusion flames.
Part 1: Still air”, Comb.Sci. and Tech., Vol 26, 233-239 (1981).
2. A.D.Birch, D.R.Brown, M.G.Dodson, and J.R.Thomas, "The
turbulent concentration field of a methane jet", J.Fluid Mech, 88,
431-449 (1978).

3. A.D.Birch, D.R.Brown, D.K.Cook, and G.K.Hargrave, "Flame

stability in under expanded natural gas jets", Comb. Sci. and Tech.,
58, 267-280 (1988).
4. B.J.McCaffrey and D.D.Evans, "Very large methane jet diffusion
flames", 21st Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
Combustion Institute, 25-31 (1986).
5. G.A.Chamberlain, "An experimental study of water deluge on
compartment fires", International Conference and Workshop on
Modelling and Mitigating the Consequences of Accidental Release
of Hazardous Materials, Sept. 26-29, pp. 763-776 (1995).
6. G.T.Kalghatgi, "Blow-out stability of gaseous jet diffusion flames.
Part II: Effect of cross wind", Comb. Sci. and Tech., 26, 241-244
(1981).
7. G.T.Kalghatgi, "Blow-out stability of gaseous jet diffusion flames.
Part III: Effect of burner orientation to wind direction", Comb. Sci.
and Tech., 28, 241-245 (1982).
8. R.F.Huang and J.M.Chang, "The stability and visualised flame and
flow structures of a combusting jet in cross flow", Comb. and Flame,
98, 267-278 (1994).

Laboratory scale experiments performed in a wind tunnel at Buxton - Not
formally written up.
Laboratory scale experiments in still air and cross winds of Methane, propane,
ethylene, acetylene, butane and hydrogen pure fuels and methane/air,
methane/co2, propane/air, propane/co2 mixtures in burners between 0.2 to
12mm, performed by Kalghatgi, not formally published
In the absence of a fundamental theory to explain the complexity of flame
stability, the series of non-dimensional groups used by Kalghatgi in "Blow-out
stability of gaseous jet diffusion flames: Parts I-III" Comb. Sci and Tech
26,233-239 (1981) has been used. In this way a complete stability map can be
generated.
A correlation for the blow-out velocity in terms of Reynolds number
characterised by laminar burning velocity of the fuel, the distance along the jet
axis where the concentration falls to the stoichiometric limit and the fuel
kinematic viscosity.
The blow-out velocity is related to the laminar burning velocity squared which
accurately describes the more stable behaviour of more reactive fuels.
Validation
Validated against the experiments the model was derived from and offshore
flare measurements.

Lifted natural gas jet diffusion flames. Wake stabilised natural gas flames.
Small scale propane and ethylene flames. Hydrogen small scale.

Data boundaries extrapolation are shown within the flame stability map.


Fuels other than paraffins and olefins

Two-phase or liquid releases.
Flame Impingement
Background
Spatial probability density data have been derived from analysis of video
images of experimental jet fire data. Using an automated digitisation system
of experimental video.

A model for predicting the probability of impingement of jet fires. A.J.
Carsley Proposed for the second European Conference on Major Hazards On
and Off-shore, 24-26 October 1995, UMIST Manchester.

Analysis of large scale horizontal releases of natural gas, propane and butane
and vertical natural gas releases. Additional small scale laboratory
experiments have also been used to develop the model.
A correlation based on froude number has been shown to provide a good fit to
the experiments, with a pseudo-normal distribution being used to define the
flame occurrence along its centre line with a power of 3.
For horizontal flames the centre line is define by a cubic.
Validation
The model has been validated against the data used to derive it, mainly large
scale horizontal releases of natural gas, propane, butane, natural gas and
kerosene and vertical natural gas releases, and laboratory scale experiments.

Propane, butane and natural gas vertical and horizontal jet flames in wind
speeds < 10m/s.

Wind speeds >10 < 15m/s. Other released fluids available in FRED.

Releases against the wind.


> 15m/s wind speed.
Custom Fluids
Background
The VLEOS physical properties program is used within FRED to perform
phase equlibrium calculations and is based upon the PEPPER physical
properties database.
The PEPPER data base stores data and parameters as used in calculation of
phase equilibria and physical properties. It has been built from the existing
smaller data collections of KSLA/ST, SIPM/MF and SICM/CMF: PEPPER is
the condensed form of continuing research effort on physical data.
All fluid properties whether single or custom are obtained using VLEOS /
PEPPER database combination

None

Not Applicable
Validation
Not Applicable

Can be used for mixtures and pure fluids supplied with the FRED application

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

When VLEOS has difficulties warning messages are given.

Non Shell Models
Overview
These models have all been implemented as scenario's within FRED, although
not all are not placed on the main scenario tool bar. They have generally been
superceeded by other models that are available within Shell FRED and as
such not all are recommended. They have been included for use where
regulatory compliance requires their use.
Vessel Burst
Background and references

A model for predicting the consequences of gas vessel failure developed by
Baker et Al. [1977] for ideal gases and later extended for non-ideal behaviour.
Far field behaviour is based on pentolite high explosive limit curve and near
field based upon numerical calculations on vessel bursts with an ideal gas.
A simple correction for ground effects and cylindrical vs spherical vessels are
based upon free-air explosion experiments of a high explosive. This was
validated by Cain et al [1992].
The implementation in FRED is as per the description in the TNO yellow
book, but with an allowance for the Brode energy which allows a fraction of
the energy to go either into the blast wave or missiles.
W.E. Baker. Explosions in air. 1973.
Lees, F.P. Loss prevention in the process industries. Second edition.
TNO Yellow Book – Methods for the calculation of physical effects CPR
14E. Committee for the prevention of disasters. Third edition 1997

The vessel wall is assumed to disappear instantaneously on failure, and a one-
dimensional set of conditions is applied at the wall, so that the internal
pressure before failure is the sum of the outward-moving blast-wave, and the
inward moving rarefaction pulse (shock-tube theory). A scaled distance is
calculated (Lees equation 17.26.7) using the vessel radius, and the scaled
pressure for the blast wave at this point is solved by iteration of the shock-
tube equation (Lees equation 17.27.2). This scaled pressure and radius (the
52 Non Shell Models April 2010

initial conditions) are used to enter a set of decay curves (Lees Figure 17.62)
which have been re-produced numerically to enable the calculation. Baker et.
Al. first derived these curves by numerical modeling of the near-field decay of
the high-pressure spherical waves, and validated them against data from
bursting glass spheres.
The equations for the curves have been collapsed to fit both the Baker curves,
and those derived by numerical simulation for the CAM methodology in
FRED.
Scaled distances use available energy as a parameter. This has been set to a
default value of 60% of the Brode energy (the total energy available), to be
consistent with the Shell BLEVE model. The other 40% of the Brode energy
is manifested in kinetic energy of the fragments of vessel wall ejected as
missiles.
In the far-field, the blast wave decays as the inverse of distance from source,
and it is therefore necessary to follow the appropriate decay curve out to this
region, and pick-off a representative scaled pressure and distance.
Baker et. Al. also give a scaled decay chart for impulse, generated from data
gathered from exploding Pentolite spheres (Lees Figure 17.61). The fit of his
numerical model to this line was poor and the scaled decay chart is a
conservative top-estimate, the same curve being used whatever the source
pressure. At large R all the curves are within 25% of this line, and below it.
(Baker et. Al Figure 2-18).
Validation and Range of Applicability

This is a literature model implemented from references and validated at small
scale.
TNO BLEVE
Background and References

TNO, LPG a study. Dutch ministry of housing, physical planning and the
environment, 1983.
C.M. Pietersen and S. Cendejas Huerta, Analysis of the LPG incident in San
Juan Ixhuatepec, Mexico City, 19 Nov 1984. TNO report 85-0222, The
Hague.
Not recommended - Use Shell BLEVE model instead. Included within FRED
where regulatory requirement specifies its use.
TNO Multi-Energy

Berg, A.C. van den. The Multi-Energy method - a framework for vapour
cloud explosion blast prediction. J. Haz. Mat. Vol 12 (1985)1-10.
Developed by TNO as a replacement for the TNT equivalence method. (The
implementation in FRED has subsequently been updated as part of the GAME
initiative)
Not recommended - Use CAM model instead. Included within FRED where
regulatory requirement specifies its use.
August 2010 Non Shell Models 53

TNT Explosion

High explosive model developed from bomb damage during the world wars.
Gugan K. Unconfined vapour cloud explosions, I Chem Eng. 1979.
Brasie W.C. and Simpson D.W., Guidelines for estimating damage explosion,
Loss Prevention, Vol 2. AIChE, pp91-102 ( 1968)
Advisory committee on Major Hazards, Second report(Chapter5) HMSO 0 11
883299, London (1979)
Not recommended - Use CAM model instead. Included within FRED for
where regulatory requirement specifies its use.
TNO Gaussian Instantaneous

TNO Yellow Book: Methods for the calculation of the physical effects of the
escape of dangerous material: liquid and gasses. 2 vols. Dutch directorate of
labour, Ministry of Social Affairs. Second Edition.
Not recommended - Use HGsystem models instead. Included within FRED for
where regulatory requirement specifies it.
TNO Gaussian Continuous

TNO Gaussian Non Boiling Pool

54 Non Shell Models April 2010

Operational Guidance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Operational Guidance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFIDENTIAL

Shell Global Solutions

Shell Research Ltd.

Document Update History

Issue Date Author Description

Ownership and copyright of this work is vested in Shell International Petroleum

This is a CONFIDENTIAL document. Any distribution beyond the parties listed

August 2010 Document Update History 1

Document Update History 1

2 Table of Contents April 2010

August 2010 Table of Contents 3

4 Table of Contents April 2010

Range of Fully Confident Applicability..................................................................... 36

August 2010 Table of Contents 5

Range of Confident Extrapolation ............................................................................. 45

Non Shell Models 52

6 Table of Contents April 2010

August 2010 Table of Contents 7

8 Introduction April 2010

Shell Scenario's Description

Non Shell Scenario's Description

August 2010 Introduction 9

Support models Description Relief Pressurised Gas Jet Unified

10 Introduction April 2010

Generalised Release Model

Publicly Available Reports

Experimental and Scientific Basis

August 2010 Shell Models 11

Since the model is founded on rigorous thermodynamic analysis, rather than

Range of Fully Confident Applicability

Range of Confident Extrapolation

Range of Doubtful Applicability

Range Not To Be Used

12 Shell Models April 2010

Transient Adiabatic Release Software (TARS)

Publicly Available Reports

Experimental and Scientific Basis

August 2010 Shell Models 13

Range of Fully Confident Applicability

Range of Confident Extrapolation

Range of Doubtful Applicability

Range Not To Be Used

14 Shell Models April 2010

Publicly Available Reports

August 2010 Shell Models 15

12. J.S. Puttock, GD.R. Blackmore G.W. Colenbrander, "Field

Experimental and Scientific Basis

Range of Fully Confident Applicability

Range of Confident Extrapolation

16 Shell Models April 2010

Range of Doubtful Applicability

Range Not To Be Used

Pool and Tank Fire Models

Publicly Available Reports

August 2010 Shell Models 17

Experimental and Scientific Basis

Range of Fully Confident Applicability

Range of Confident Extrapolation

Range of Doubtful Applicability

Range Not To Be Used

18 Shell Models April 2010

Publicly Available Reports

Experimental and Scientific Basis

Range of Fully Confident Application