FACTORS INFLUENCING

THE EXPLOSION DAL AND

QUANTIFICATION OF THEIR
IMPORTANCE

Gladys Nalvarte
DNV GL

E: Gladys.nalvarte@dnvgl.com
T: +47 9060 2309

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 3

 OIL & GAS

Factors Influencing the Explosion

Dimensioning Accidental Loads (DAL)
and quantification of their importance

Safety Risk Management

25 & 26 June 2014

Confidential

1 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Content

 Introduction
 Objective
 What is done
 Influence of design parameters on DAL
– Ventilation
– Dispersion
– Explosion
 Influence of process parameters on DAL
– ESD and Shutdown
– Ignition Control
 Conclusions

Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

2

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 4

 Introduction
Risk based approach
 Provides loads that accounts for both the severity of events and the likelihood of those events
– Impracticality or economic viability of designing only against worst case events (WCEs)
– Significantly high loads can be experienced for WCE
 Identification of key risk drivers and important physical effects
– Particularly beneficial for complex facilities

1.E-02

Target 1_Small
1.E-03 Process area
Exceedence frequency (1/year)

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07

1.E-08
Confidential
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Pressure (barg)
3 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014
DAL at 1.E-4

Objective

Identification of the relevant parameters that influences the DAL

Define the influence of each parameter in different type of installations
Where we will have the best effect for reducing Explosion DAL
In this context we can provide a decision support where the Key question
is: “how we can reduce the explosion DAL in a more effective manner”

Confidential

4 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 5

 What was done

DNVGL has run ERA tool that can efficiently be used to perform parameter
studies
A sensitivity analysis was performed to quantify the variation in DAL when
each input to the probabilistic analyses was changed at the time.
Two types of areas were analysed : one large process area and one small area
in a floating unit.
ERA performed 112 times

Confidential

5 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Explosion Risk Analysis (ERA) approach normal areas

FREQUENCY AND SAFETY SYSTEM ANALYSIS
CONSEQUENCE
ANALYSIS WITH FLACS
CFD
Converting
geometry

CFD
Ventilation

CFD
Dispersion
Risk analysis:
CFD  DNV program EXPRESS
Explosion  Response surfaces
 JIP Ignition model
 Monte Carlo simulations
Improve
design

Explosion DAL
Design effects and
recommendations
Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

6

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 6

 Summary of the cases run for the sensitivity analysis –
Small process area (14 parameters x 4 values)

Base case Average

V= 3515 min value max value
DAL DAL

P3 Cloud growth - 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.69

Filling fraction
C1 - 3 10 30 90 0.46
steepness coefficient
Dispersion Filling fraction decay
param. P2 - 0.5 1 2 4 0.59
coefficient
A+B Max filling fraction - 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.76
Normalized ventilation
Q/uref (m2) 0.25 0.5 1 2 0.50
rate
small Pressure exponential
P1 0.9 1 1.07 1.2 0.54
process Explo growth
area param.
Kp Pressure linear growth 0.5 1 3 6 0.55 0.24

Vs inventory m3 18 36 100 300 0.56

tESD time to ESD closure s 15 30 45 120 0.56
Process tBD time to BD open s 15 30 45 300 0.56
param.
BD def time BD duration to 7 barg min 2.5 5 15 30 0.60

Max m Max initial leak rate kg/s 50 100 300 900 0.54
No. of ign.sources, 3 increase
Ignition Ns 0.5 1 2 3 0.56
places factor
sources
param Increase of T1
Tsd Time to ign.sd. 0.5 1 2 3 0.57
and T2

Confidential

7 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Summary of the cases run for the sensitivity analysis –

Large process area (14 parameters x 4 values)
Base case Average
V= 819731 min value max value
DAL DAL
P3 Cloud growth 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.12 1.12

Filling fraction steepness

C1 2 5 15 60 0.89
coefficient
Dispersion Filling fraction decay
param. P2 0.5 0.8 2 4 1.12
coefficient
A+B Max filling fraction 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.1 1.07
Normalized ventilation
Q/uref (m2) 0.1 0.25 0.5 1 1.26
rate
large P1
Pressure exponential
0.6 0.7 1 1.2 0.90
Explo growth
process
param.
area Kp Pressure linear growth 0.5 1.8 5 10 1.05 2.48

Vs inventory m3 43 86 150 300 1.09

tESD time to ESD closure s 15 30 45 120 0.98
Process tBD time to BD open s 15 30 45 300 0.86
param.
BD def time BD duration to 7 barg min 2.5 5 15 30 1.05

Max m Max initial leak rate kg/s 182.5 365 730 1500 1.12
No. of ign.sources, 3
Ignition Ns increase factor 0.5 1 2 3 1.06
places
sources
param Increase of T1
Tsd Time to ign.sd. 0.5 1 2 3 0.83
and T2

Confidential

8 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 7

 Average
C1 DAL Variation
DAL
Main result and selection of 90
30
0.85
0.55
0.395

parameters to pay most attention : 10 0.29

0.455
0.325
3 0.13

Confidential

9 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Ventilation and Dispersion are recognized to be

the key topics for control of explosion and fire
on offshore installations.

Confidential

10 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 8

 Complex problem

Example for dispersion: find the largest cloud size within the flammable limits

Real problem CFD analysis

Q9 – Volume of
Fuel the gas cloud
within the
Air flammable limits
Complexity: Physics & Geometry
Confinement,
Congestion,
Leak (Location, Direction, etc.)
Wind (Direction, Speed, etc.)

Mathematical Parameters that are used to

model fit the mathematical models
Response to the CFD results
curves Example:
Confidential
Filling fraction steepness
11 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014 coefficient C1

C1 - Filling faction steepness coefficient (local effect)

Poor local
ventilation Good local
ventilation

Confidential

12 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 9

 C1 - Dispersion local effects: how good or bad is the local
ventilation for small leak rates

Confidential

13 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Effect
Influence of of the
the filling C1 parameter
faction steepness in the 1.E-4
coefficient onDAL
the DAL at 1.E-
comparison
4/year for
for the small
small process
process area area

Poor local
ventilation
Good local
ventilation

Total Variation
0.7 barg

Confidential

14 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 10

 Effect of C1 on the overpressure exceedence curve

1.E-02
C1=3

C1=10
1.E-03 Good local C1=30
Exceedence frequency (1/year)

ventilation C1=90
Poor local
1.E-04 ventilation

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Overpressure (barg)

Confidential

15 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

AB – Maximum filling fraction at the worst combination of leak

rate and wind speed for a given jet direction considering all
wind directions

Semi obstructed jet

Jet zone

Passive zone

Confidential

16 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 11

 Example of the effect of different wind direction for one leak
direction (jet direction towards west)
N

E
Vfmax/V
=
0.13 Vfmax/V=
0.06

Vfmax/V=
NW 0.15

Vfmax/V=
W 0.16

Confidential

10 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Nove
Slide 17
mber Version

Example of the effect on the Maximum filling fraction for different

wind direction and one leak direction

Wind dir: N Wind dir: E

Jet dir: N Jet dir: N

Confidential

18 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 12

 AB – Maximum filling fraction

 More global effect that will produce the biggest gas cloud
1.6
Poor
1.4
ventilation
Good
1.2
ventilation
1
DAL (barg)

0.8

0.6 High
variation ~ 1
0.4
barg
0.2

0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5

Average A+B

Confidential

19 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Effect of Maximum filling fraction (AB) on the exceedence curve

Good Poor
ventilation ventilation

Confidential

20 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 13

 Influence of explosion on the DAL

Confidential

21 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Effects that decides the overpressure

 Congestion – Amount of Plot 2, l/V (m/m3) is parameter

l/V = 3.0 m/m3
turbulence generating obstacles 3
l/V = 2.0 m/m3
2.5
– l/V, congestion parameter, l/V = 1.0 m/m3

length of all obstacles per 2

Pressure (barg)

volume (m/m3) 1.5

0.5
 Confinement – Amount of walls
0
and decks 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Cloud size, Vf (m3)
– Av/A, confinement parameter,
Open area per total surface 3
Plot 1, Av/A is parameter

area 2.5
Av/A = 0.10
Av/A = 0.12
2
Pressure (barg)

Av/A = 0.20
 Distance - cloud size 1.5

1
 Gas type and concentration
0.5

0
Confidential 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Cloud size, Vf (m3)
DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014
22

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 14

 Effect of different congestion and confinement
East side Explosion pressure – 1600 m3 cloud

Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

23

Effect of different congestion and confinement

West side Explosion pressure - 1600 m3 cloud

Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

24

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 15

 Explosion theory and background
P0 ( E )   P K P f1 ( E )ril ( E ) 0  E  Ec
P0 ( E )   P (aE  b) ril ( E ) Ec  E  Emax
12 FLACS results

11
Response surface, f1
10

9 Linear part, f1 Pmax

7
P (barg)

3
6 E p1
5
f1  e
4
3

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Confidential
Ec/Emax Filling

10 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Nove
Slide 25
mber Version

Effect of congestion and confinement

Pressure linear
increase
Kp

Pressure
exponential
increase
P1

Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

26

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 16

 Effect of the exponential
increase of the
overpressure vs gas
cloud volume

Lower
congestion
and
Higher
confinement
congestion
and
confinement

Confidential

27 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Effect of P1 in the overpressure exceedence curve

Higher
Low congestion/ congestion/
confinement confinement

Confidential

28 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 17

 Effect of the process parameters on the
Dimensioning accidental load

Confidential

29 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

ESD and blowdown

 Settings that will influence the risk:
 Example from hild
– Gas detection time (number of gas
detectors)
– ESD valve closing time
– Reduction of the inventory, better
segmentation
– Time to start blowdown
– automatic at ESD
– manual 5 min
– Blowdown duration
 Why
– Gas is building up very quickly,
within 30s
– Most ignitions occurs during gas
buildup phase due to exposure of
Confidential
continuous ignition sources
DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014
30

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 18

  Ignition probability

 Leak profiles

Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

31

Shutdown of ignition sources, ignition control

 Ignition sources:
 Static electricity, hot work, manning,  How long time does it take to shut
electric, pumps, compressors, other down?
sources
– Hot work, need to cool down
 External ignition: Flare, turbine air
inlets and exhausts, furnaces, – Compressors, has shutdown cycle
cranes – Manning must leave area
 Immediate ignition (no explosion) – Pumps and others need to wind
 What can be shut down? down and cool down
– Hot work, manning, electric, pumps,  Significant ignition sources are still hot
compressors during first 30 s.
 How much is shut down?
– Electric 50-90%
– Hot work 90%
– Pumps 50%
– Compressors100%
Confidential

DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

32

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 19

 Main result and selection of process parameters to pay most attention:

Confidential

33 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Main result and selection of

parameters to pay most attention :

Confidential

34 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 20

 Conclusions

 Designers can reduce DAL pressures by up to an order of magnitude by

building inherent safe designs whereas after the design is fixed, the process
control mitigating measures can only reduce the DAL with typically less than
50%
 The largest effects on reducing DAL pressures are found on the congestion
and confinement parameters. For the large process area, DAL varies from 0.1
to 2 barg for a well and poorly designed process area
 Effects that improve ventilation and gas dispersion can influence the DAL
pressures significantly, e.g. for small process areas, from 1.4 to 0.25 barg by
having a better ventilation with less re-circulation zones
 Reduced time to ESD closure can reduce the DAL from 1.5 to 0.5 barg for the
large process area when closure time is reduced from 2 min to 15 s.

Confidential

35 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Conclusion (continuation)

 It is evident that many parameters influences the explosion risk hence

detailed DAL analyses are recommended
 Results from this study gives an indication of how much improvement in
DAL can be expected when changing the input parameters – useful in the
concept stage
 It gives the opportunity to run more CFD simulations considering sensitivity
cases in parallel with the base case and quantify the reduction on DAL at
early stages and contribute actively to improve the design.

DNVGL - JIP FLNG REVDesign

Confidential

36 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 21

 Thank You

Gladys Nalvarte
Gladys.nalvarte@dnvgl.com
+47 9060 2309

www.dnvgl.com

SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Confidential

37 DNV GL © 2014 16 June 2014

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 22

Questions and answers

Q: You seem to have characterised explosions via their peak pressures. Did you also
consider their durations in your analysis?

A: No. We only considered the overpressures on the target area in the presented study.
However, it is possible to establish a correlation between overpressure and duration
in the analysis.

Q: I understand that the presented sensitivity study was carried out by changing one
parameter at the time whilst keeping the others unchanged. Is it correct to assume
that the parameters described in your presentation are independent from each other
and that changing one does not affect others?

A: We do know that this is not entirely the case and that some parameters are not
independent. The type of analysis described in my presentation is however very
efficient at the preliminary design stage for identifying the parameters which influence
the risk the most.

Q: What leak durations do you typically use in such analyses?

A: The leak durations to be considered will depend on type of installation. The values
shown in my presentation corresponded to the small and large process areas
investigated in this case.

Q: How do you account for the non-uniform mixing of the gas cloud with air in your
explosion analysis?

A: For the type of analysis described in my presentation, we use the equivalent

stoichiometric gas cloud (Q9) approach with FLACS.

Q: You showed average values in your presentation. How was this “averaging”
carried out?

A: For the purpose of this presentation, I simply considered an arithmetic mean of

the results.

Technical meeting proceedings - JUNE 2014 www.fabig.com 23