FABIG TM79 ExplosionRiskAssessmentforanFPSOandDALSpecificationforNLFEA CAzzi RBrewerton

EXPLOSION RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
AN FPSO AND DAL SPECIFICATION

FOR NLFEA
Camille Azzi
Gexcon
E: camille.azzi@gexcon.com
T: +47 94825662
Robert Brewerton
Natabelle Technology
E: rwb@natabelle.co.uk
T: +44 1732465465
Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 25

Explosion Risk
Assessment for
an FPSO
Influence of Dispersion Simulations
Camille Azzi
June 2014
Background and Objectives

• Explosion Risk Analysis (ERA) for an FPSO in FEED
stage
• Sensitivity of different analysis parameters

Critical but out of the presentation’s scope
• Focus on effects of CFD simulations of gas dispersion on

definition of Dimensioning Accidental Load (DAL)
© GexCon AS
2
www.gexcon.com

Description of Study Area
• Overview of the FPSO
© GexCon AS
3
www.gexcon.com
Description of Study Area

• Process area of FPSO bounded by two blastwalls
BLASTWALL
© GexCon AS
4
www.gexcon.com

Overview of Explosion Risk
Analysis
• According to NORSOK Z013
• Ventilation
• Weathervaning – 2 representative wind directions
• Dispersion
• Described in more details (topic of presentation)
• Explosion
• 7 cloud size categories distributed over the whole area with
centre and edge ignitons
• Risk calculations
• Time dependent ignition model
© GexCon AS
5
www.gexcon.com
Dispersion – Simulation Setup

• All input and assumptions apart from dispersion are fixed
• One representative gas composition for CFD simulations
• Leak rates considered are 0.75, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 and
96 kg/s
• 2 wind directions, 5 winds speed each direction
• All (feasible!!!) leak locations and directions in the study
area
© GexCon AS
6
www.gexcon.com

Dispersion – Release Locations
FORWARD
WIND
• Evenly distributed release locations (6 x 4 matrix)

• Each leak location: 6 jet release directions and diffusive release
© GexCon AS
7
www.gexcon.com
Dispersion – Number of Simulations
Wind Wind Leak

Variation Location Release Total
Direction Speed rate
Number (without FC) 24 7* 2 2 5 3 360
Number (with FC) 24 7* 2 5 8 13 440
* 7 releases = 6 directions + 1 diffusive
© GexCon AS
8
www.gexcon.com

Dispersion – Results per Leak Rate
© GexCon AS
9
www.gexcon.com
Dispersion – Results per Leak Direction
© GexCon AS
10
www.gexcon.com

Dispersion – Results per Leak Location
© GexCon AS
11
www.gexcon.com
Maximum Cloud Scenario
© GexCon AS
12
www.gexcon.com

Explosion Risk
1 location / All directions
BLASTWALL (1E‐04/yr)
0.180
0.160
0.140
Overpressure [barg]
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
Various Configurations
0.040
Central Rows
0.020
Central Rows & Colums
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Number of Leak Locations
© GexCon AS
13
www.gexcon.com
Explosion Risk:
0.180
0.160
0.140
Overpressure [barg]
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
Central Rows
0.020
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Each analysis: 140 sim Number of Leak Locations

(560 with FC)
© GexCon AS
14
www.gexcon.com

Explosion Risk:
0.180
0.160
0.140
Overpressure [barg]
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
Central Rows
0.020
0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Each analysis: 140 sim Number of Leak Locations

(560 with FC)
© GexCon AS
15
www.gexcon.com
Explosion Risk:
Various locations / directions
0.180
0.160
0.140
Overpressure [barg]
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
Each analysis: ~180
0.020
sim
0.000 (720 with FC)
Explosion risk from 24 locations and all directions

Explosion risk from various dispersion setup by different consultants
© GexCon AS
16
www.gexcon.com

Conclusions
• Various driving factors in ERA
• Ventilation and explosion simulations are typical
• Dispersion simulations subject to different setup
methodologies
• Setup and number of dispersion simulations affects ERA
• Case specific conclusions – Not to generalize:
weathervaning and homogeneous area etc.
© GexCon AS
17
www.gexcon.com
Acknowledgements
This work is sponsored by

Samsung Heavy Industries
Disclaimer: Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, copying

or use of the information in the presentation is strictly prohibited
by GexCon and SAMSUNG.
© GexCon AS
18
www.gexcon.com

Thank you for your attention
camille.azzi@gexcon.com
+47 94825662

Natabelle Technology Ltd
Explosion Risk for an FPSO and

DAL Specification for NLFEA
Robert Brewerton
www.natabelle.com
25-06-14 1
Outline
• The use of anticipated congestion and application of
safety factors to derived explosion loads
• Defining DAL loads
• What to do about high drag pressures
• NLFEA examples and DAL input requirements
• The probabilistic / deterministic dilemma
• Conclusions
25-06-14 2

Acknowledgements
• Gexcon (advances in load definition in FLACS)
• Arup advanced Technology Group (LSDYNA NLFEA)
• Booth Industries Ltd (some design examples)
25-06-14 3
Fire & Explosion Design to ISO 19901-3 7.10
25-06-14 4

Development of Topsides Design by Engineering Contractor

is an Iterative Approach (OTO 1999-048)
Process Layout Safety Structural
Structural
Equip 1 + layout 1
Implement
large pipes
anticipated
congestion
CAD topsides
Layout 1
Equip 2 + 1st Explosion
pressures Response
medium pipes
analysis analysis 1
Implement in
CAD model Structural
layout 2
Implement
anticipated
congestion
CAD topsides
Layout 2
Equip 3 + 2nd Explosion Response
small pipes pressures analysis 2
analysis
Implement in Structural
CAD model details final
Final expl.
CAD topsides
pressures
Layout 3
analysis
Start
Safety Case Construction
25-06-14 5
Anticipated Congestion Methodology - Example

Early EPC layout 2003
Pd = 0.609m/m3, dm = 152mm
AC basis for this project:
6% PDMS import,
94% AC,
P&IDs 30% complete
End of design layout 2004

Pd = 0.632m/m3, dm = 157mm
25-06-14 6

End of design layout 2004

Pd = 0.632 dm =157mm
As built, in operation 2008

Pd = 0.935, dm = 151mm
25-06-14 7
FLACS Geometry for Process Area of FPSO in FEED 100%

AC plus PDMS for equip. Total, ~ 60km pipe, pd ~ 0.5
Comment: 60 km pipe
means about 5000 lines,
15000 piping Iso’s and
35000 pipe supports to
engineer
25-06-14 8

Primary objectives of DAL loads

• To be the interface between the explosion pressures
results and the structure and equipment design
• Structural design is fixed early but explosion loads
continue to evolve through to as-built milestone.
• The early DAL loads should be substantially less than the
design loads for hardware procurement so apply a safety
factor to them.
• Keep DAL spec. simple so that project staff and vendors
can understand it.
• Load levels indicate the suitability of the selected layout
and the sufficiency of implemented mitigation methods.
25-06-14 9
Large Panel Peak Overpressure - Exceedence Curve for

Walls and Decks: How to Apply a Safety Factor
For significance of
the dotted yellow
lines see text
Dotted lines indicate loadings with 1.5 safety factor and show that, in this case,
applying it is like using 3 x 10-5 pressure in place of 10-4 value
25-06-14 10

Large Panel Impulse Value Exceedence Curve
Pmax
Impulse value
pressure
td = shaded area
Using 3 x 10-5 exceedence pushes up impulse by 50%,
Mean 3*10-5 td value = 2*5700/120000 = 95ms time

25-06-14 11
“Trumpet” Diagram for Variability of Impulse Duration

(Example)
Approx upper bound td value 150ms

but Pmax can be capped at a lower value
Probable td value 95ms for Pmax 1.2bar
Approx lower bound td 50ms for

Pmax 1.2bar
25-06-14 12

Small Panel Peak Pressure Exceedence Curve

Pressures are Twice as Much as Large Panel Ones
In this case applying 1.5 safety factor is like using 5 x 10-5 pressure in place of
10-4 value
25-06-14 13
Typical Drag Pressure vs. Peak Overpressure (TN8)
Extensive use of NLFEA*

Moderate use of NLFEA*
Use ASME B31 3 & Caesar II
* For SCE
25-06-14 14

What To Do About High Drag Pressures

• Affects mostly equipment and piping.
• Simple response methods when Pd < 0.2 bar.
• Much more complex above 0.2bar, sometimes threshold is
<0.2bar.
• zone the module areas according to drag severity.
• For SCE subject to drag >0.2bar, redo analysis by special
methods and change design as necessary to meet
performance targets.
• In open structures with grated decks high drags can occur
anywhere and are more problematic than confined modules.
• In FPSOs & FLNG make sure your hull is big enough to keep
pressures down (reduced packing density) and avoid
confinement.
25-06-14 15
Examples of NLFEA Response Analysis

• Stressed skin stainless steel escape tunnel
• 10m span stainless steel cross deck blastwall
• A horizontal pressure vessel
• Reference to piping design
25-06-14 16

Escape Tunnel in Norwegian Sector
25-06-14 17
Basic Configuration & Selection of Pressure Panels for

FLACS Reporting
Main deck splits the tunnel loading into two
parts for the loading
Small panel is local pressure upgrade to large
panel pressure (moveable patch),
Large panel size limited to span
length
Problem: tunnel side height may not

equal a whole number of FLACS
control volumes
25-06-14 18

Level 1 Analysis for Overall Beam Response (DLB Loading)
Overall beam model
Cantilever support structure analysis

required for support stiffness and
strength
25-06-14 19
NLFEA Main model (600 000 elements)

(Level 2 model)
25-06-14 20

Component Model (Level 3) Refined Mesh for Local Buckling

of Corrugated Wall
25-06-14 21
Comments
• Level 1 model is simple and essential to develop the
design
• Level 1 model potentially lends itself to probabilistic
response analysis
• Level 2 model is the definitive structural analysis and
definitely has to be deterministic with scenarios selected
from the Level 1 analysis
• Level 3 analysis is essential to check local failure modes /
code check.
25-06-14 22

Example 2: Cross-deck Blast Wall

Arrangement of Pressure Panels
• Do not use one large panel as structure does not respond
as one large panel
25-06-14 23
Large Blast Wall Component Model (DLB loads)

(Level 2 of NLFEA)
• May require Level 2a model of whole wall where truss
shear deformation is important
25-06-14 24

Example 3: NLFEA of Main Equipment

• DLM* Method for explosion loading on large obstacles:
LSDYNA model
25-06-14 25
Pressure Monitor Points Implemented in FLACS to Obtain

Applied Loading as Pressure Time Histories
506
503 504
501 502
505
25-06-14 26

Point Pressure-time Histories for a Selected Scenario,

Exported as Excel Time Histories
• Note this particular vessel was located outside the flame
zone
10-4 blast pressures on PP4 - D302
0.25
Point 501
0.20
Point 502
Point 503
0.15
Point 504
P ressu re [b ar]
Point 505
0.10
Point 506
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05
Time [s]
25-06-14 27
Stress Output, All-time Highs: This is the Code Check

(or part of it)
25-06-14 28

Example 4: Piping response

• Vessels usually have pipes stuck to them (here there are
750m of cylinders) and many supports back to vessel
For piping loads, consider use of CFD

like CFX with fluid flow input out of
FLACS (Scenario specific)
Gets around the problem of uncertainty
in drag coefficient.
25-06-14 29
Drag Coefficients and Variability

Baker drag coefficients Variability of drag coefficient
(TN8)
25-06-14 30

Piping Design:
Implement Monitor Point Arrays into FLACS for Drag
25-06-14 31
Typical Drag Pressure Time Histories for Monitor Points

within the Exploding Cloud
Within the gas cloud there are flow reversals

Dynamic response typically -2.2<DLF<2.2
DNV guide for pipe response RPD101 envisages DLF 1.5 to 2.0: use 2 inside the cloud
25-06-14 32

Conclusions
1. Always apply a safety factor to explosion overpressures and only get rid
of it at as built stage.
2. NLFEA methods require carefully selected DAL input.
3. If you want to run NLFEA probabilistically you need very coarse models.
4. Coarse models will not properly code check the response and
demonstrate survival: you need refined models and deterministic load
cases.
5. Piping and equipment analysis can be difficult: there are potentially
many thousands of lines, nozzles and supports to check, hence keep
pressures down so that the task is manageable and late design
changes are reduced.
6. Be very careful about your SCE designation: it affects both safety and
workload.
7. Beware of thin walled pipe in high blast areas.
25-06-14 33
Footnote: Modelling Pseudo Members out of FLACS into

Simplified LSDYNA Models of Whole Modules
1. This is an 8m cube of congestion in a
module
2. Use CoC option in FLACS to quantify
X, Y, Z drag areas, cylinders & box
(Format to be modified by GexCon
soon)
3. Apply Baker drag coefficients.
4. Get total X, Y, Z loads from monitor
point drag time histories
5. Allocate half load to lower deck, half
to upper (in this picture).
6. Use weight report to get masses and
allocate similarly
7. Repeat for all 8m cubes in the
module
8. Works for AC so long as it is not
Select central random AC
Drag Monitor point
25-06-14 34

Thank you
Robert Brewerton
www.natabelle.com
25-06-14 35

Questions and answers
Q: You talked about applying a safety factor of 1.5 to the explosion loads. I understand
that a safety factor can either be applied by increasing the load or by using a lower
frequency criterion. You opted for the former; what is the reason for this?
A: In projects, you actually have to use a lower frequency criterion and I tried to show in
my presentation a way of determining which reduced frequency can be used. There
are also other ways; one can take a more conservative approach on the gas cloud
size for instance. The problem with such approach is that this can lead to arguments
with the regulator as it may look like you are shifting the goal posts over the course
of the project.
Q: Why does Gexcon use the Q9 approach to quantify the level of volume of flammable
gas cloud?
A: This question has been ongoing for some time and I am probably not be the best
person to answer. I would however say that it has been used for many years and has
been tested and compared to inhomogeneous clouds. I understand that some
companies use other approaches.
Q: Why does the ignition probability decay with time?
A: This is because ignition sources will be detected and isolated with time, and
personnel will also be evacuated.
Q: You showed an escape tunnel in your presentation. For a long tunnel, could you
please explain how you take into account the changes in explosion load distribution
as the explosion propagates along the tunnel?
A: This is carried out by having a panel for each section of the tunnel, so that each span
of the tunnel is analysed according to the load on that particular panel. Regarding
time considerations, if you have not done the analysis comprehensively using non-
linear FEA, we generally find that the speed of the explosion wave along the tunnel is
not sufficient to generate a “snake like” response.

FABIG TM79 ExplosionRiskAssessmentforanFPSOandDALSpecificationforNLFEA CAzzi RBrewerton

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

FABIG TM79 ExplosionRiskAssessmentforanFPSOandDALSpecificationforNLFEA CAzzi RBrewerton

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXPLOSION RISK ASSESSMENT FOR

AN FPSO AND DAL SPECIFICATION

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 25

Background and Objectives

• Sensitivity of different analysis parameters

• Focus on effects of CFD simulations of gas dispersion on

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 26

Description of Study Area

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 27

Dispersion – Simulation Setup

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 28

• Evenly distributed release locations (6 x 4 matrix)

Dispersion – Number of Simulations

Wind Wind Leak

Number (without FC) 24 7* 2 2 5 3 360

Number (with FC) 24 7* 2 5 8 13 440

* 7 releases = 6 directions + 1 diffusive

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 29

Dispersion – Results per Leak Direction

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 30

Maximum Cloud Scenario

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 31

Each analysis: 140 sim Number of Leak Locations

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 32

Each analysis: 140 sim Number of Leak Locations

Explosion risk from 24 locations and all directions

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 33

This work is sponsored by

Disclaimer: Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution, copying

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 34

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 35

Explosion Risk for an FPSO and

Natabelle Technology Ltd

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 37

Natabelle Technology Ltd

Fire & Explosion Design to ISO 19901-3 7.10

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 38

Development of Topsides Design by Engineering Contractor

Natabelle Technology Ltd

Anticipated Congestion Methodology - Example

End of design layout 2004

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 39

End of design layout 2004

As built, in operation 2008

Natabelle Technology Ltd

FLACS Geometry for Process Area of FPSO in FEED 100%

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 40

Primary objectives of DAL loads

Natabelle Technology Ltd

Large Panel Peak Overpressure - Exceedence Curve for

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 41

Large Panel Impulse Value Exceedence Curve

Mean 3*10-5 td value = 2*5700/120000 = 95ms time

Natabelle Technology Ltd

“Trumpet” Diagram for Variability of Impulse Duration

Approx upper bound td value 150ms

Approx lower bound td 50ms for

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 42

Small Panel Peak Pressure Exceedence Curve

Natabelle Technology Ltd

Typical Drag Pressure vs. Peak Overpressure (TN8)

Extensive use of NLFEA*

Mean 310-5 td value = 25700/120000 = 95ms time