HE08 Presentazione #26 PDF

HANDLING EXCEPTIONS In Structural Engineering, Universit degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza - 13 e 14 novembre 2008
HANDLING EXCEPTIONS
In Structural Engineering:
ROBUSTEZZA STRUTTURALE,
SCENARI ACCIDENTALI,
COMPLESSITA DI PROGETTO
Aula del Chiostro, Facolt di Ingegneria
Universit degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza
Via Eudossiana 18
13 e 14 novembre 2008
F.Chill, J.R.Bakke, K.van Wingerden - Use of CFD tools for prediction of explosion loads
Use of CFD tools for prediction of

explosion loads
F.Chill, J.R.Bakke, K.van Wingerden
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Use of CFD tools for prediction of explosion loads

Presentation of GexCon AS
Relevant Accidents
Explosion hazard management and analysis
Gas explosion and affecting parameters
Requirements for suitable gas explosion loads prediction tools
Presentation of FLACS code
FLACS applications
Risk assessment methodologies
Concluding remarks
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Global Explosion Consultants
Main office in Bergen, Norway

35 employees with more than 350 man
years of explosion experience
R&D-projects, software development
(FLACS), consulting, accident
investigation, laboratory testing
~ 150 projects per year
Simulation
Software
Dept
GexCon AS
Italy
Agent
Gas Risk
Consulting
Dept
Process
Safety Dept
GexCon
Sverige
GexCon
UK
China
Agents
Korea
Agent
Staff
Associated partners
GexCon
USA
Japan
Agents
Xafe AS
(Stavanger)
Taiwan
Agent
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Lilleaker
Consulting
(Oslo)
www.gexcon.com
Use of CFD tools for prediction of explosion loads

Introduction
Accidental explosions can lead to significant damage
and constitute a major contributor to escalation of
smaller events into large accidents.
Preventing such events from happening or even
reducing their consequences if they happen, requires a
good understanding of what an explosion is, as well as
an ability to convert this theoretical understanding into
practical understanding and suitable mitigation
measures.
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Gas Explosions - Offshore

Piper Alpha, UK, 1988
Started in compressor module

Explosion pressure: ca. 0.3 bar (?)
Lost control
Caused fires and new explosions
Riser rupture
Platform lost
167 people died
Estimated to be the largest loss within
petrochemical industry
Lessons from Piper Alpha important for safer design in the 1990s
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Gas Explosions - Offshore

Petrobras P-36, BR, 2001
Worlds largests floating
platform(33,000 tonns)
Built at Fincantieri's Genoa yard in 1995 as a
semi-submersible drilling rig.
Converted in Canada to the world's largest
oil production platform.
Cost USD 350 mill.
21 wells at 1300m depth
80-180.000 b/d oil + gas
10 people died in 2-3 explosions
165 evacuated in the middle of the night
Platform sank 20 March 2001
Estimated 9500 bbls (1500m3) of oil on
board
2000 bbls leaked from the rig in the first 24h
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Gas Explosions - Onshore

Flixborough, June 1974
Explosion in Nylon facility, 28 people killed (weekend)
Liquid Cyclohexane (C6H12) leaked from underdimensioned pipe used to replace
leaking pipe (March 1974).
Second time leak was reported, starting after shut-down, control lost=>major leak
Accident report states that management is strongly to blame
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Hydrogen Explosions
Hydrogen is an extremely reactive gas. In air it can burn in concentrations from
about 4% to more than 70%, with a fundamental burning velocity almost an order
of magnitude higher than natural gas. Stoichimetric mixture with air requires only
30 grams hydrogen per m3.
Release of 20 kg hydrogen
High local pressure
Big local damage
100 kg TNT
Windows shattered up to 700 m
Jet fire followed
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Dust explosions - Coal Mines

Methane appears in mines
Ignition source may give explosion
Secondary coal dust explosion
Low pressure decay
1000s killed every year
300 in Ukraine
>2000 in China
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Dust explosions Agricoltural

Westwego, Louisiana, 22 Dec 1977
Grain dust explosion at Continental Grain
Complex
73 reinforced concrete silos 35m high
810m diameter
First explosion early in the morning,
subsequent explosions
36 people killed
More than half of the silos destroyed
Other industries at risk: wood, metals,

plastics and rubber, pharmaceuticals
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
10
Oil Mist Explosions - Electrical Equipment

Dielectric breakdown in
oil-insulated equipment
leads to internal arc and
oil pyrolysis
Explosive atmosphere
(mainly H2 and oil mist) is
formed after primary
explosion
Underground hydropower
plants
Urban substations
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
11
12
Several types of explosion...
GAS
IGNITION
SOURCE
DUST
OXYGEN
EXPLOSION
MIST
EXPLOSIVE
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
13
Gas explosion loading

Burning gas is hot and expands
Overpressure is generated if expansion is hindered by
9 walls
9 equipment
9 surrounding air
Confinement extreme conditions:
9 completely confined (closed vessel)
9 completely open
Expansion rate extreme conditions:
9 low expansion (complete confinement)
9 high expansion (no confinement)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
p=RT/M
Explosion mechanisms
Typically explosions occur somewhere in between the extremes
confinement conditions (open/closed geometries)
The overpressure level is determined by the balance between the
rates of expansion and venting
Flame velocity X Flame area
Gas flow velocity X Vent area
Expansion rate
Rate of venting
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
14
15
Parameters influencing the explosion evolution

Flame velocity depends on:
9 turbulence (interaction between
gas flow and obstacles)
9 gas type
9 gas concentration
Flame area depends on:
9 flame folding (interaction
between flame and obstacles)
Vent area depends on:
9 design layout
increased flame surface
Gas velocity depends on:

9 rate of expansion
9 limited by the sound speed
increased diffusion of heat and mass
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Parameters influencing the explosion evolution

Flame velocity depends on:
9 turbulence (interaction between
gas flow and obstacles)
9 gas type
9 gas concentration
Flame area depends on:
9 flame folding (interaction
between flame and obstacles)
Vent area depends on:
9 design layout
Gas velocity depends on:
9 rate of expansion
9 limited by the sound speed
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
16
17
Blast loads
Pressure
Natural Period Range for

typical civil structural elements
Expected
pressure transient
for confined
conditions
Primary plus secondary

explosion
Only confined secondary

explosion
(internal explosion)
Only primary
explosion
20
40
60
80
100
1000
1500
2000
2500
Time (msec)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
18
Blast loads
Expected
pressure transient
for partially
confined
conditions
Pressure

Primary plus secondary

explosion
Only vented secondary

explosion
(venting)
20
40
60
80
100
120
Only primary explosion
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
140
160
180
200
Time (msec)
19
Blast loads
Pressure

Expected
pressure transient
for partially
confined
conditions, high
obstruction level
(process industry)
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time (msec)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
How can explosion loads be

estimated/calculated?
Normograms (guidelines e.g. NFPA-68):
9narrow application range
9real situations often under-predicted
Blast decay methods (e.g. Multi-energy method)
9simple and useful if applied conservatively
9limitations (good for far field)
Experimental scaling
9expensive and inaccurate in a general situation
9limited value (Pmax can be approximated, not duration)
Phenomenological models
9can give reasonable results in certain situations
9explosion phenomena too complex in general
CFD simulations (e.g. FLACS)
9potential for accurate estimates
9complicated physics validation important
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
20
21
Explosion feedback loop

Increased
temperature
Gas
ignites
Pressure build-up
Expansion
Enhanced
combustion
Gas flow
Turbulence
generation
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Interaction
with obstacles
22

Strongly influenced by congestion degree
EXAMPLE: CMR 3D-CORNER EXPERIMENTS
(27m3) WITH PROPANE VBR=0.50
3x3x3 820mm pipes
15x15x15 164mm pipes
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
23

Strongly influenced by congestion degree
Very good representation of geometry is required
Same volume blockage, 15x15 thin pipes give > 100 times higher pressure than 3x3 larger
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
24
Requirements for suitable gas explosion load

prediction tools
The consequences of a gas explosion will depend on the following aspects:
type of fuel and oxidizer
size and fuel concentration of the combustible cloud
location and strength of ignition source
congestion degree (location and size of structural elements and
equipment)
size, location and type of explosion vent areas
mitigation schemes (if any)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008

prediction tools
Gas explosions may be very sensitive to changes in these factors: a
proper tool for gas explosion load prediction should permit to properly
take into account all these aspects, which can be resumed within the
following requirements:
geometry based formulation
capability in describing complex 3D geometries (up to hundred of
thousands primitives for real plants)
full Navier-Stokes fluid dynamic formulation for the estimation of
turbulence field
laminar and turbulent burning velocity model
validated gas library (explosion properties database for a given, clearly
stated set of gases)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
25

prediction tools
A complete and versatile tool for gas explosion quantitative risk analysis
should include:
a ventilation module for proper description of environmental conditions
a dispersion module for proper description of gas cloud formation
an explosion module for proper description of flame and pressure
wave propagation
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
26
27
FLACS (FLame ACceleration Simulator)
GAS EXPLOSION
GAS DISPERSION
BLAST PROPAGATION
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Geometry representation
Explosions require very good representation of geometry
All objects are built from
box or cylinder primitives
(including minus operations)
Geometry is mapped to the CV's
using a distributed porosity concept
A control volume or CV-face may be
open / partly blocked / fully blocked
In addition to porosities,
sub-grid turbulence factors are calculated
Efficient CAD-import systems exist
GexCon imports about 40-50
offshore geometries from PDMS and
PDS (Microstation) every year
Range of geometries includes
simple geometries easily defined by hand
full offshore platforms/FPSO (~ 400.000 objects)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
28
Geometry representation
Recent dispersion tests in geometries of real congestion confirmed
importance of geometry representation also for dispersion analyses
FLACS has advantages to traditional state-of-the-art CFD-tools

due to more efficient geometry handling (including import)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
29
30
FLACS equations
Flow solver:
Full 3D Cartesian N-S flow solver
SIMPLE method, compressible extension
Implicit/explicit 2nd order accuracy
BICGSTAB-solver
Transport equations for fuel/fuel mix.
Distributed porosity concept (PDR)
Source terms for chemical reactions
Euler-model for droplet transport
P, ...
Turbulence:
k- model
wall functions
sub-grid contributions
Equations seem to be similar for all CFD-tools

Amount and quality of application related work equally important
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Sub-grid modeling
Several scales must be solved on realistic grid sizes (0.1-2m)
Turbulence model is one of several SUB-GRID models in FLACS
Initial combustion model
Flame model
Flame folding around objects
Water deluge model
Models for panels
Subgrid pipes increase pressure factor of 6
spray
flow
Development and validation of sub-grid models are time consuming

easy to make a model, difficult to make a good model
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
31
Flame models
Any flame model (3D) will be grid dependent!
FLACS flame models:
Beta model, force fuel equation to give specified burning velocity (Slam, Sturb)
reaction zone has a certain thickness (3-5 control volumes)
Must be adjusted when high curvature / laminar phase (wrinkling low with thick flame)
SIF model, simple interface flame (zero thickness inside one control volume)
fine grid allows more wrinkling than coarse grids
Flame area depends on grid resolution compensation still needed
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
32
Burning velocity model

- Flame library, Slam(ER), for all gases
- For gas mixtures properties are interpolated
- Corrections for actual T, P, oxygen content in air
- Quasilaminar model for initial flame wrinkling
- Correlation for Sturb
- Turbulent quenching
- Mitigation of inert gas / deluge will influence
- Subgrid objects enhances the flame area (flamefolding)
Enthalpy model
Energy release from combustion increased temperature
Temperature increase depends on generated reaction products
FLACS calculates this from equilibrium conditions based on reactant composition, ER,
presence of inert gases, ambient T / P
Hydrocarbon gases burn into
H2 + CO + OH + H2O + CO2
Fraction of CO increases with temperature, fuel concentration
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
33
FLACS Validation
Physics modelled are complex need for empirical relations from experiments.
Physical length scales << grid cells (flame models, shocks, deluge models, turbulence, small
scale equipment) easy to make a good theoretical model, difficult to obtain good results.
Significant amount of sub-grid modelling is required engineering is needed to get them grid
and time step independent.
Extensive VERIFICATION and VALIDATION of models is essential.
Implications:
9results will not necessarily become better on a finer grid
9validation on varying grid required
FLACS modelling philosophy (accurate results as fast as possible)
9implement good physics and numerics
9verify
9simplifications where appropriate/necessary, optimization for efficiency
9VALIDATE, VALIDATE, VALIDATE, ...

DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
34
FLACS Validation
Extensive test matrix including:
- simple tests, sensitivity studies
(combustion models, turbulence, shock tube)
- experimental test geometries
(vented boxes with obstacles,
3D obstacle arrays)
- experimental realistic geometries
(CMR 50m3 module, full scale modules)
- testing of particular models
(deluge, dispersion, far field blast)
Comparisons include far more than max. pressure (duration / shape / distr.)
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
35
36
FLACS Validation - effect of congestion

CMR 3D-CORNER EXPERIMENTS (27m3) WITH PROPANE VBR=0.50
Pexp=25 mbar
Pexp=0.25 bar
FLACS-96 SIMULATIONS
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Pexp>4.0 bar
37
FLACS Validation - explosion

Wide range of tests simulated
Several M24 tests
4x4 BR=0.23
9x9 BR=0.17
~10 MERGE
geometries
15x15 BR=0.47
1995 Validation study, 50 different experiments compared to FLACS.

Plot shown was important to identify need for model improvement.
5 different 3D-corner geometries
4 SOLVEX geometries at 2 scales
5 different BG Bang-box geometries
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
1995 water deluge study, 3 different nozzle

pressures for different gas concentrations
FLACS Validation - explosion

One significant deviation seen in 1995
was empty SOLVEX box:
FLACS: 20 mbar
Experiment: 90 mbar
Improved 2005 without changing model, by
extending domain further outside vent opening
2nd peak due to external explosion is

obtained by extending grid outside vent
Pressure level predicted 1995
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
38
FLACS Validation - hydrogen explosion

Simulated and submitted in November 2006; Access to results December 2006
Refuelling station blind H2 simulation (Shell)
Presented at ICHS2
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
39
40
FLACS Validation - dispersion

Dispersion (and explosion of dispersed cloud)
Basic tests including numerical schemes
SMEDIS evaluation project
1998 GexCon 50m3
Phase 3B (GexCon 50m3, Advantica 2600m3)
Kit Fox (52 CO2 releases)
Prairie Grass (37 SO2 tracer release)
MUST (42 C3H6 tracer releases)
NYC Urban dispersion project
LNG (Burro, Coyote and Maplin Sands)
FLACS-98
dispersion sim ulation : Flam m ble volum e
Observed
Simulated
rt.FUEL file
2500
Volume (m^3)
2000
1500
1000
FLACS-99
Basic tests: Standard
numerical schemes will
not give symmetrical
impinging jet
500
20
19
18
18 : 1m grid
17
16
16 : 1m grid
15
14
14 : 1m grid
13
12
11
10
9 : 1m grid
8 : 1m grid
test num ber
Phase 3B geometry FLACS flammable

volume versus experiments in 20 tests
Kit Fox: 75 large and

6600 small obstacles
Coyote 5 LNG release simulation

1998 study comparing observed and simulated concentration and explosion pressure
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
MUST: 120 shipping containers
FLACS Validation - summary

A large number of test simulations are performed
- a significant number of basic tests
- hundreds of experiments including
- more than 50 full scale experiments (BFETS and HSE campaigns)
- more than 100 simulations using water deluge
- sensitivity studies of different parameters (grid dependency, ...)
- a range of successful blind tests recently!
- validation on many variables (pressure, time, impulse, flame propagation, gas
concentration, far field blast,...)
CFD = Colorful Fluid Dynamics

modeller can often get the result he/she wants
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
41
42
FLACS applications Onshore Gas Explosion
Pressure wave
propagation
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
43
FLACS applications Onshore Gas Explosion
Flame
propagation
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
44
FLACS applications M24 Module Gas Dispersion
Gas concentration
2D contours on
velocity vectors plot
Gas concentration
3D contours plot
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
FLACS applications Transformer explosion

thermal powerplant
Fuel dispersion
Flame propagation
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
45
Explosion hazard management

Risk reduction measures should focus on:
preventing incidents (i.e. reducing the probability of an
explosion occurring)
controlling incidents (i.e. limit the extent and duration of
a hazardous event, reducing explosion loads to
acceptable levels)
mitigating the effects (i.e. reducing the consequences of
an explosion and reduce the likelihood of escalation as a
result of explosion loads).
Risk Analysis provides useful information for taking
decisions within the hazard management process.
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
46
Risk assessment methodology

using suitable tools for gas explosion loads quantification
key requirement in a risk analysis process
not sufficient
suitable risk assessment methodology is needed
9collecting and integrating input/output information relevant to different
task for proper modelling
9producing synthetic output information suitable for final assessment
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
47
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
48
Requirements for geometry implementation

Anticipated Congestion Method
overpressure is strongly dependent on the degree of congestion
(piping, equipment, structure, cable trays etc.)
details and piping down to 2-5 cm size need to be included
implementation of main geometry objects:
CAD import (PDMS or PDS/Intergraph)
manual implementation, based on drawings
implementation of smaller details:
CAD import (PDMS or PDS/Intergraph)
GexCons Anticipated Congestion Method (ACM), formalized
procedure for generating smaller geometrical details based on
similar existing installations.
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
49
50
Requirements for geometry implementation

Anticipated Congestion Method
ACM is faster and cheaper than basing the implementation on
actual drawings of the installation.
By using the ACM, detailed geometry representations can be
generated even in a concept phase where very little geometry
information exists.
Geometry details very
important, CFD-model
that ignored details can
overpredict ventilation
by a factor 2
and underpredict
explosion load by a
factor 5
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
51
Requirements for cloud size evaluation

overpressure is strongly dependent on the amount of gas-air mixture
close to stoichiometric concentration
representative cloud sizes should be used in an explosion analysis
the cloud size evaluation should be based on CFD simulations, also
accounting for the geometry congestion
stoichiometric gas-air clouds should be defined according to a
predefined equivalence criterion by evaluating the amount of gas-air
close to stoichiometric concentration calculated by dispersion analyses
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
52
Risk analysis methodologies

Worst case explosion analysis
objective: to assess the maximum realistic overpressures to be expected
with a specific layout.
can be effectively adopted for cases in which the explosion scenario is
determined by a quite restricted number of well identified scenarios
unsuitable for complex plant and scenarios, for which it is not possible to
determine the degree of conservatism in preselecting a small set of
scenarios, with respect to the resulting overpressures.
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
53

Probabilistic explosion analysis
objective: to generate realistic overpressures for an area based on
probabilistic arguments.
Statistics about weather conditions, gas leak rates and positions, as
well as ignition sources, are considered.
Probabilistic analysis tasks:
generate a distribution of gas cloud sizes with associated
probabilities of occurrence (typically 100-150 dispersion simulations)
generate statistics for ignition with a time dependent ignition model
establish probable explosion scenarios
generate a distribution of overpressures with associated probabilities
of occurrence (typically 50-100 explosion simulations)
extract probability of exceedance curves
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
54

Probabilistic explosion analysis
Probability of exceedance curves can be used:
to base design loads on a probabilistic argument. It is then necessary to
have probabilistic acceptance criteria in terms of both damage
acceptance and frequency (as an example probability of a wall or deck suffering
unacceptable damage shall be less than 10-4/year)
to assess mitigation
measures by comparing
exceedance curves based
on different assumptions.
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
Concluding remarks
Gas explosion hazard represents a sensitive issue for the safety
assessment of industrial sites and surrounding areas.
Risk Analysis can be used both to evaluate the consequences of
hazardous events and to determine appropriate risk reduction.
Suitable, well validated analysis tools and methodologies should be
applied for the scope.
Geometry should be defined in detail.
FLACS code is a suitable, widely validated, CFD tool for
ventilation/dispersion/explosion analysis for industrial applications.
DOI: 10.3267/HE2008
55

HE08 Presentazione #26 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

HE08 Presentazione #26 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

HANDLING EXCEPTIONS In Structural Engineering, Universit degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza - 13 e 14 novembre 2008

Use of CFD tools for prediction of

Use of CFD tools for prediction of explosion loads

Global Explosion Consultants

Main office in Bergen, Norway

Use of CFD tools for prediction of explosion loads

Gas Explosions - Offshore

Started in compressor module

Gas Explosions - Offshore

Gas Explosions - Onshore

Dust explosions - Coal Mines

Dust explosions Agricoltural

Other industries at risk: wood, metals,

Oil Mist Explosions - Electrical Equipment

Several types of explosion...

Gas explosion loading

Parameters influencing the explosion evolution

increased flame surface

Gas velocity depends on:

increased diffusion of heat and mass

Parameters influencing the explosion evolution

Natural Period Range for

Primary plus secondary

Only confined secondary

Natural Period Range for

Primary plus secondary

Only vented secondary

Only primary explosion

Natural Period Range for

How can explosion loads be

Explosion feedback loop

Explosion feedback loop

3x3x3 820mm pipes

15x15x15 164mm pipes

Explosion feedback loop

Requirements for suitable gas explosion load

Requirements for suitable gas explosion load

Requirements for suitable gas explosion load

FLACS (FLame ACceleration Simulator)

FLACS has advantages to traditional state-of-the-art CFD-tools

Equations seem to be similar for all CFD-tools

Development and validation of sub-grid models are time consuming

Burning velocity model

9VALIDATE, VALIDATE, VALIDATE, ...

FLACS Validation - effect of congestion

FLACS Validation - explosion

Several M24 tests

1995 Validation study, 50 different experiments compared to FLACS.

5 different 3D-corner geometries

4 SOLVEX geometries at 2 scales

5 different BG Bang-box geometries

1995 water deluge study, 3 different nozzle

FLACS Validation - explosion

2nd peak due to external explosion is

Pressure level predicted 1995

FLACS Validation - hydrogen explosion

FLACS Validation - dispersion

dispersion sim ulation : Flam m ble volum e

test num ber

Phase 3B geometry FLACS flammable

Kit Fox: 75 large and

Coyote 5 LNG release simulation

MUST: 120 shipping containers