OTC 6634

Blast Loads for Offshore Modules

R.B. Corr and R. Snell, BP Engineering, and V. Tam and S, Simmonds, BP Research

Copyright 1991, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper wee presented at the 23rd Annual OTC in Houeton, Texas, May 6-9, 1991.

This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee fellowing review of information sentained in an ebe.trastsubmittad by the author(s), Contents of the papar,
es presented, have not besn reviswed by the Offshore Technology Conference and ara subject to cerractlon by the author(a), The matarial, as praeanted, does not necessarily raflact
anv oosition of the Offshore Technole!avConference or its offlcars. Permission to sepy is restricted to an abstraef of not more than 200 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstrsct
;~o~ld-contain conspicuous acknowl&dgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.

If the dynamic response of the structural system,

AMWJ21 plasticdeformation and strainrate effectsare taken into
This paper discusses the methods by which the account and if safety factors are removed from the
overpressurescreatedbya hydrocarbonexplosionwithin structuralcode checksthen structuresmay be designed
a congested offshore module may be calculated. The to tolerate a high blast loading for comparatively little
nature of the resultsobtained from numericalsimulation incrementalcost.
are discussedleading to an approach by which a struc-
tural loading suitable for use in a linear elastic analysis
package for code verification.

Strain rate effects, load combinations and deforma-

tion criteriaare also discussed. When a hydrocarbon/air mixtureis ignitedit burnsin
a flame front radiating from the point of ignition, This
lNTRO DUCTIC)N
processis termed a deflagration.The temperaturecould
The calculation of the effects of blast loading on rise to 2200K following the ignition of an (optimum)
offshore modules requires an interface between struc- stoichioiometrich drocarbon/air mixture. If the gas is
turalengineersand specialistsin combustionmodelling. allowed to expanJ freely this would lead to an eightfold
The data produced horn a combustion simulation increase in volume. Within the confines of an offshore
requires careful interpretation if costly over-design or module the gas is prevented from expanding freelyand
unnecessary strengtheningof an existingstructuresisto hence the pressurerises.
be avoided. As with any interfacebetween disciplinesa
common understandinghas to be attained to produce The processes involvedin a gas explosion are com-
optimum results. plex and are the subject of current research. The
Blastloading is significantly differentfrom the other expanding gas from combustion produces a flow ahead
forms of loading normally considered in the design of ofa movingcombustionfront.When thisflow encounters
offshore topside structures because of its dynamic equipment and module structures,turbulence is gener-
nature, the response of the structurals~stem, and the ated. As turbulence has the effect of increasing com-
~v::mental uncertainties associated with the design bustion rate, the combustion front accelerates. The
. pressure rise experienced inside the module depends
upon the rate of combustionand rate of removal of gas
Acceptance of a degree of permanent damage or from the module. Thus overpressure created by gas
deformation of the structuremay not only be tolerated module explosions within a module vary considerably
butmay bean essentialfeature ofthe design.Underthese tlom case to case, and are highlydependant on module
circumstancesthe normalcode checks which are stress configurationand internallayout.
related may no longer be appropriate.
BP Research have carried out a large number of
simulationsofblasts withinmodules.Insomecasespeak
pressuresinexcess oftwo bar (200 kN/sq m) have been
calculated with average values as high as one bar (100
kN/sq m). For comparisonthese pressuresare an order
Referencesand illustrationsat end of Paper of magnitude greater that those used for live load.

695
 2 BLASTLOADING FOR OFFSHORE MODULES
The overpressurein a gas filled module startsto rise
within 500-1000 msecs of ignition occurringwithinand
peaks within a further 150-200 msecs. The peak may
persistfor up to 40 msec and the total duration of the
pressurepulsemaybe upto 400 msecs. Hence the event
willhave occurredwithin1to 2 secondsof ignition taking
place.
~ pi
Over the last decade a considerableeffort has been
expended in developing methods of predicting the
ove ressure generated by a gas explosion withinthe
conl!nesof a module.A numberof ap roachesare in use
rangingfrom the simpleventingmoc? els of Cubbage and
Simmonds (Ref 1) to detailednumericalsimulationusing
FLACS (Ref 2). The entire spectrum of methods have
been recently reviewed in considerable detail (Ref.3).
NumericalSimulationsof a blast or deflagrationin an
offshore module generatesthe pressureloading on the
structuralcomponents in two main forms.
Firstly,the simulationsproduce pressuretime history
plotsfor specified locations.Secondly, contour plots of
the overpressure values generated on walls and floors
can also be obtained for specifiedinstancesin time. The
problemfacing the structural engineer is to convert the
dynamicloads into quasi-staticloads whichfor practical
designpurposesare suitablefor use witha simplelinear
elastlcstructuralanalysispackage and whichalso relates
to the structuralcode checksalreadyinuseand welltried.
PRFSSURF TIMF HlSTQ13Y
As a resultof a gas explosionan overpressurewillbe
created within a module by the rapidlyexpanding gas.
The d namic pressuretime historiesgenerated by a
numerics1simulationpackage such as FIACS may vary
from a simple pressure time pulses (see Figure 1) with
a welldefinedpeak and durationto a morecomplexpulse
with a number of peaks or spikes and with an inde-
terminateeffectiveduration(see F@ure2). The pulsetype
depends very much upon the position of the monitoring
point and the layout of the module. As a general rule a
heavil congested module will tend to produce more
comprex time history plots than one which is relatively
empty.
SPATtAl DISTRIBUTION
The numericalsimulationcodes also produce spatial
or contour lots of the pressure when a maximum is
occurring. ?i ure 3 has been extracted from Tam and
Simmonds (# ef 4). It may be assumedthat the pressure
- time historyat an locationcloseto the monitoringpoint
may be obtained 1 y factoring the pressureat the moni-
toringpointby the ratiobetweenthe pressuresat the two
points on the contour plot.
Usingsuchan approximationitispossibleto combine
the pressures at a numberof pointsand to determinethe
overallloading on a complete panel and thus establish
the dynamic response of the panel.
For primarystructurethe main blastload isdue to the
pressure loading on the secondary steel work, floor
panelsand cladding.
696
OTC 6634
Thispressuretaken at face value maybe substantial.
However the reactionswhich a member may generate
are limitedby its stren th. Biggs (Ref 5) has examined
such reactionsin detai. 7 The total reaction is a function
not only of the loadingon the structural elementbut also
of the capacity of the element. For dynamic loading the
applied load is resistednot only by the stiffnessbut also
b the inertiaof the system.When the structuredeforms
asticallythe inertialresistancewillbecome significant.
Thus, for structural elements which are attracting
overpressureload throughsecondaryelementsthe blast
Ioadmgusedindesignmaybe reduced significantly.The
effectiveload as seen by the steel work may be signifi-
cantly less than the peak overpressurevalues quoted,
and, m addition the load is reduced duringtransmission
from the secondary steelworkto the primarymember.
STRUCWRAL LQtWW
The responseof the structuralsystemto the pressure
Ioadin is important.Publicationssuchasthe US Forces
NAVFfiC (Ref 6), ASCE42 (Ref 7), and the UK Chemical
IndustriesAssociation Guidelines (Ref 8) have recog-
nised the importance of the dynamic response of the
structurals stem and the ductile propertiesof structural
materials. L any of the Industrieswhkh have faced the
problemof blastloading have recognisedthat structures
can be designed moreeconomically providedthat some
degree of permanentdeformationcan be accepted.
When an actual pressurepulse such as that givenin
Figure 2 is used both the peak pressurevalue and the
blastdurationbecome more difficultto define.Alsoifthe
pressurepulse contains spikes there may be doubt as
to their significance.
The classic solution of the structuralresponse of a
SingleDegree of Freedom Systemwithelasto-plasticto
a simple loading form has been examined by various
authors. Biggs (Ref 5) solved the dynamic response
problem for a number of simple load time historiesand
expressed the solution in terms the following non-di-
mensional parameters:
i) the ratio of the blastdurationto the NaturalPeriod
of the Structure,Td/Tn
ii)the ratioofthe maximumdeformationto the elastic
deformationand, &w/&
iii) the ratio of Peak Applied Load (PO)/ Resistance
available (&)
These solutions are reproduced on Figures 4 to 8 for
reference.
To overcome the roblems of determiningthe effec-
tive durationof the brast and the representationof peak
overpressurethe authors developed an algorithmbased
on the methodology proposed by Biggs and using a
simplelinearintegrationtechnique.
The algorithm is designed to use specific pressure
time histories and produces a design chart which is
specificfor a giventime history. The durationof the blast
and the peak applied pressures are used to non -
dimensionalise the arameters. The chart utilises the
inverseof the natura1periodofthe structuralelementand
the capacit of the element to resistthe blastexpressed
in bar, see r igure 9.
Ttis technique removes the uncertainty associated
with the identificationof either the duration of the blast
or the peak pressureto be used.
OTC 6634 CORR, SNELL TAM AND SIMMONDS
FJATURAIPFRIOD AND DYNAWX313PONSE
For most module type structuresit will be the indi-
vidualelement responsewhichisimportant.Afthoughan
individual module will have a number of natural
frequenciesand mode shapes.TheStructurewill respond
into the mode shape correspondingto the form of the
blast loading.
Individual structural components in use offshore
normallyhave naturalfrequenciesinthe range 20 to 200
msecs. Individualwall panels normally have periods in
the region of 20 msecs. The natural period is a function
of the effective length and dead load on the structural
elementand willvaryovera wide rangefor beamssubject
to a wide range of operationalloads.
Althoughthe naturalperiod of the structuralelement
is an important parameter in calculating the structural
responsethe shape of the pressuretime historyand in
particularthe risetime is also important.
PI ASTIC RFSPONSE
The simplestmethod of solvingthe dynamics problemis
to reduce the structuralsystem to an equivalent single
degree of freedom (SDOF) system. For accurate repre-
sentationthis requiresthat the single degree of tleedom
system is capable of modelling both the dynamic
behaviourof the system and also the plastic behaviour.
Biggs derived the formula for reducin a number of
structural elements to a singledegree of freedom form.
Anequivalencebetweenthe realsystemandthe idealised
SDOF system is establishedin terms of a displacement
ata specifiedpoint.From the singlevalueofdisplacement
the behaviour of the complete structural element is
calculated. The behaviour of the SDOF system is
expressedin terms of a ductilitylimitwhich is the ratio of
the maximum displacement of the system to the dis-
Iacementat tiich the SDOF systemreachesitselastic
Pimit.
Structuralsteels and, in particular,those used offshore
are consideredat theirelasticlimitat a roximately0.2%
strain. However, steels specified to :{ MUA (Ref 9) are
capable ofdevelopin strainsof upto 18% beforerupture
occurs (see Fig 10). Prom an energy viewpointsteel has
the capacity to absorb 20 to 40 times as much energy
plasticallyat the point of ruptureas it can elastically.
STRAIN RAIY FFFFCT
The UK CIA Code allowsan increaseof 20 per cent in
the basic yield strengthof steelto account for strainrate
effects.Other industrieshave incorporatedsimilarstrain
rate effects.
STRUCTURALCODES OF PRACTICE
A gas explosion within a module represents an
extremely severe design case. The worst case may be
basedonamodulefilledwtha stoichiometricgasmixture
and withan ignitionsourceplaced at the worstpoint.This
may however be an extremely pessimistic set of
assumptions with an accordingly low probability of
occurrence.
The initialrequirementwillbe to contain the blastand
avoid escalation of the incident. However, a structure
damaged by blast and fire maybe requiredto continue
itsload carryingfunctionfor a specifiedperiod of time to
permit evacuation.
697
3
A blast within a module may create a very severe
accidental load, and, given the low probability of the
design case occurring,Nmay be excessivelyconserva-
tive to incorporatea safetyfactor.
Limitstate codes such as LRFD (Ref 10) check the
structure under accidental load by setting the partial
factorsto unity.A working stresscodes such as API RP
2A (Ref 9) has safety factors built into the code forrnu-
Iation. The workin stress code must be modified to
remove the safety z ctors againstthis event.
The UK CIA recommended the following ductility
factors.
For tension and bending 5.0
members
For CompressionElements 1.0
In usin existing desi n codes to calculate the
capacity o! a structural e7ement to resist blast it is
necessary to make the assumption that the design
checks used for static loading are also suitable for
dynamic loading and that the material remainselastic.
If for a particular structural element the modified
structuralcode checks are found to be inexcess of unity
the blast load can be factored down to determine the
blast load at which the ductility ratio is unity.
Usingthe ratiosof the loads,the natural eriod of the
elementand the load -ductilityratiogra hs J e maximum
deformationcan be calculated using $Igure 9.
The deformation of the member can be assessed
againstthe following criteria
i) willthe structural capacity of the member be reduced
to an unacceptable level because of the deformation,
ii) W-IIthe fire protection remain sufficientlyintact to
provide structuralintegrityfor a adequate period of time
If a fire occurs or,
iii)willthe deformationsleadto escalationofthe incident
throu h , for exam Ie, release of inventory,toppling of
vesses ? or fdlure or safety systems.
Primary members with high axial loads may require
additionalanalysis forjustificationunder combinedaxial
and fire load with blast damage. Ttis could be achieved
by insertingadditionalnodes inthe member to modelthe
permanent deformation or by developing element stiff-
nesseswhichaccountforthe deformationswithmodified
code checks to account for the eccentricities.
Although blast loading within a module ma present
a severedesign case the Im act maybe IimiteJ by using
a range of techniques whit K have been adopted from
other industries which have faced the problem of
designin structures which may be subject to high
dynamic7oads.
By recognizing the impulsivenature of the pressure
loading,allowing an enhancementfor strainrate effects,
buildingductiii~ into the structureand setting damage
acceptabilitycriteria the design implicationsof the blast
event can be significantly reduced and the required
resistancebuilt into the structurethrough good detailed
design.

4 BLASTLOADING FOR OFFSHORE MODULES
1 Cubbage, P.A., Simmond:, W.A. An Investigation
of E Iosion Relieffor IndustnalDryingOvens- I Top
! in Box Ovens, Trans Inst Gas Engrs 105, p470
Relies
1955.
2 Bakke,J R NumericalSimulationof Gas Explosions
in Two-Dimensional Geometries,PhD Thesis, Facultyof
Mathematicsand NaturalSciences,Universityof Bergen
August 1986.
3 Reviewof the Applicabili of PredictiveMethodsto
Explosions in J shore Modules Offshore
?~~hnology ReportOTH89312. London: HMSO 1990
4 SASimmondsandVH YTam, Effectsof Equipment
Layoutand Ventin Geometry on the Consequences
of Gas Explosions. 2uropec 80, Society of Petroleum
Engineers,The Hague, NetherlandsOctober 90.
5 Bi s, J M Introduction to Structural Dynamics,
McGraww ill 1964
I
OTC 6634
6 NAVFAC P-387/AFM 88-22/TM 5-1300 Structures
toresistthe effectsofaccidentalex Iosions.Departments
of the Army,the Navy and the Air F orce June 1969.
7 ASCE 42 Design of Structuresto Resist Nuclear
~9ea ons EffectsManual of EngineeringPractice No 42
J
8 Guidelines for the design of Cateqo 1 Blast
Resistant) Control Buildings UK Chem[ca 7A In ustry
Association1976.
9 EEMUA Steel Specification for Fixed Offshore
Structures Handbook No 150 Engineering Equipment I
Manufacturersand Users Association.
10 Draft Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designingand ConstructingFixed OffshorePlatforms
- Loadand ResistanceFactorDesignAPI Recommended
~&;$icg2A-LRFD (RP 2A-LRFD)Fmt Edition,December
9
11 Recommended Practicefor Planning, Desi nin
and Constructing Fixed OffshorePlatformsAPI idP
EighteenthEdition September 11989

I
Pressure Time History

().8

(). /

0.6

0.5

0.4

03

0.2

0.1

0.:

Fig.1. Simple Pressure Time History Pulse

698
 Pressure Time History

09

0 .Ii

0.7

0.6

05

al
L
0.4
i
m
t! 0.3
L
a.

0.2

,.
.,

1 1 I 1 , # 1
0.1 1 1 1
400 600 800
0 200
Time - msec

Fig.2. Complex Pressure Time History Pulse

699
 ....*..
...
.=
Olu
~3
:>
.. .. ., UC
Og
...
...
...
3 ..
3

l_l.-.

::
.
4

--
.

. .
.
.
.

.
,.
.
----

.
.
.
. .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

..,..
.
.
.

q..
. .
. .
. .
. .

.
.

.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

li-
.
..
..
[ .
. .:-~:. /
. .... ... . .. ..

.. . . .. / ..

J,. ~::::
\....
.. .. . . [
.. ..

.\..:. -::.:.
\ . ...
.

. . .\ ...
...
:yy-m... .

.......
T

.n.-....1-
. . . . . . . . .. --,

+x. G

\ . . . :..:
..:.-:
. . . . . - . ....

... . . .. . -- ..................
. . .............
:::. .:;
-.....
.....-----
.... ........ ----
......
\
...-- J
. . . ...................
...... ....- .....
=

... . . ----------------
.m:.:-......%.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.
.
. . . . . . .... . ...... ... Q
..
\ . ..-.
..
. : :y;y+:;~:~: ::;.- f 3

:\
. .. . . . f ........ ..$

L
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . ...

. .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:.: :.:.. ..--.7 .:

.

k
.....
,; <.:;:%!:!:::
...... .................
,........ .
....
. ... .....
........
......
...
.... .., ......
?\.............. .....
.......
..........
. . . ...... ....
.....
\

-. .-.:::::::;;;::.:;
.... .................
\.... ;;;
.....:::::.:::: ,.-. ::.:::::
&...:::::.....
--------
.. .
.V:........
.... :-:-..
-----
::.:
.......
. . . ...... ...... .....

....
.1 .<.
..
......
...*.....
....,
.,..
:
.\l:.
.. ,:XX=X2
... ..................
...... .....
...................
............ .....

.... 3 ...
... ..O. . .

700

___= ___
A.- ~: _-_< ~_=_= .
 70
100.0

80

10.0

.90

M
1.0 Pulse Load
Pa

h
I

i
t

0.2Std td

0.1 1.0 10.0

[ .!
0
td/Tn
Fig.4. Biggs Chart Rise Time/Duration = 0.25

100.0

10.0

1.0 wls. LoaO

0.50td ta

0.1 10.0
0.1 1.0
td/Tn
Fig.5. Biggs Chart Rise TimelDurakion = 0.5
701
 1 ) I I 1 \ 1 i I 1 m/vQ.u ,>0 1 \ t 1
I
100,0
I
I I /1
I I I I A I
I I I I I i I
, .r 1
, 1 -.
0,70
/ A 1/
/ / A
/ / II /
/ / /
/

7/
/ // A- 0,00

10.0 .$,
/ /

1 / 1 1 ,

+-
1
I 1 I

0.90

j+jg
1.0 PU1S9 Load
Po

/// I I I I I I I I I I I I
i
/
t

0.1
1.0
TITTl 10.0
m
0,75td td

0.1
td/Tn
Fig.6. Biggs Chart Rise Time/Duration 0.75

100.0

10.0

1.0
P.

i
t
I

-.
1.0 10.0
lO.!
td/Tn
Fig.7. Biggs Chart Rise Time/Duration = 0.95 ---

702
 u
.

g
.
0

0

0
.+

.
i

fi
o.
w
c


c
u
4J


7

\

\ VI
$jI
\\ m

0

0 0
\ \
.

o
.A-
rx

0 0 .+
0

.
/03

---=. ____ -
 I

100,
z
o
.!+
.@
m
E
L
o (1

Rn : Re~:s~ance In
bar
I

\
c
o
.rl
.@
(Q
E
L
o
+
.00
.40 Puloe Load
PO
?max . 1.00 bar I

\
L
time

0
l\TIn (S@C -t)

Fig.9. Biggs Chart Actual PreswreYrirne W!OW, :. f -. I

!. ______ __.. _. - . ---

10 20

A STRAIN

Fig.10. Stress/Strain Curves for Steel

I
704