Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

CFD simulations of gas explosion and fire actions

J. K. Paik , B. J. Kim , J. S. Jeong , S. H. Kim , Y. S. Jang , G. S. Kim , J. H. Woo , Y.

S. Kim , M. J. Chun , Y. S. Shin & J. Czujko

To cite this article: J. K. Paik , B. J. Kim , J. S. Jeong , S. H. Kim , Y. S. Jang , G. S. Kim , J. H.

Woo , Y. S. Kim , M. J. Chun , Y. S. Shin & J. Czujko (2010) CFD simulations of gas explosion and
fire actions, Ships and Offshore Structures, 5:1, 3-12, DOI: 10.1080/17445300902872028

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445300902872028

Published online: 18 Nov 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 553

View related articles

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20

Download by: [Nanyang Technological University] Date: 09 October 2017, At: 01:44
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010, 312

CFD simulations of gas explosion and fire actions

J.K. Paika , B.J. Kima, , J.S. Jeonga , S.H. Kima , Y.S. Jangb , G.S. Kimb , J.H. Wooc , Y.S. Kimc , M.J. Chunc , Y.S. Shind
and J. Czujkoe
a
Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea; b Hyundai Heavy Industries, Ulsan, Korea; c Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering,
Geoje, Korea; d American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX, USA; e Nowatec AS, Asker, Norway
(Received 16 December 2008; final version received 6 March 2009)

Hydrocarbon (gas) explosions and fire are the hazardous events that present the greatest potential risk for offshore installations.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017

More refined computations of the consequences of explosions and fire within the framework of quantified risk assessment and
management for offshore installations are therefore required. Although the action characteristics of such hazardous events
must be identified prior to an analysis of their consequences, the objective of the present paper is to develop a modeling
technique for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of hydrocarbon explosions and fire. The results of this study
form part of phase I of the three-phase Joint Industry Project on Explosion and Fire Engineering in floating production,
storage and offloading systems (FPSO) (abbreviated by EFEF JIP).
Keywords: offshore installations; floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO); gas explosion; fire; computational
fluid dynamics (CFD); quantified risk assessment (QRA) and management

1. Introduction hazards within the framework of risk assessment and man-

Structural design and safety assessment requires the iden-
tification of the characteristics of both actions and action
effects. Here, the term action refers to either an external
load applied to a structure (direct action) or an imposed
deformation or acceleration (indirect action), and the term
action effects refers to the effects of these actions on a
global structure or structural components (ISO 2007). This
paper focuses on the characteristics of the actions that are
due to gas explosions and fires.
Although they often accompany each other in offshore
installations, hydrocarbon explosions and fire are differ-
ent phenomena by nature. Hydrocarbons are organic com-
pounds that contain only hydrogen and carbon (Nolan
1996). They typically take the form of gases at ordinary
temperatures, but change in form to a liquid or even solid
state with an increase in molecular weight. In fact, the
principal constituents of petroleum and natural gas are
hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons can be exploded through ignition when
combined with an oxidiser (usually oxygen or air). Thus,
when the temperature rises to the point at which hydrocar-
bon molecules react spontaneously to an oxidiser, combus-
tion takes place. This hydrocarbon explosion causes a blast
or a rapid increase in pressure.
Fire, in contrast, is a combustible vapour or gas that
combines with an oxidiser in a combustion process that is
manifested by the evolution of light, heat and flame. Of
primary concern in terms of the actions that result from
agement is the impact of pressure on explosions and that of
elevated temperature on fire.
The topsides of offshore platforms are most likely to be
exposed to such hazards as hydrocarbon explosions and/or
fire, and a number of major accidents involving them have
been reported, one of which is shown in Figure 1. De-
tails of some of these accidents can be found in Vinnem
(2007).
The quantified risk assessment (QRA) and management
framework requires that the consequences of hazards be
analysed in a more refined way. Prior to that analysis, how-
ever, the characteristics of the actions that arise from them
must be identified (Czujko 2001; Paik and Thayamballi
2003; Czujko 2005, 2007; Paik and Thayamballi 2007; Paik
and Melchers 2008).
The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method is
recognised as one of the most powerful tools for identi-
fying the action characteristics of hydrocarbon explosions
and fire. Thus, the aim of the study reported herein was
to develop a modeling technique for CFD simulations of
hydrocarbon explosion and fire actions as part of a joint in-
dustry project on explosion and fire engineering in floating
production storage and offloading systems (FPSOs). This
project, the Joint Industry Project on Explosion and Fire
Engineering in FPSOs (EFEF JIP), began in March 2008
(Paik and Czujko 2008) with the main objective of develop-
ing a fully QRA and management system for hydrocarbon
explosions and fire.

Corresponding author: Email: bonjour@pusan.ac.kr
ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online
Copyright 
C 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17445300902872028
http://www.informaworld.com
 4 J.K. Paik et al.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 1. Piper Alpha explosion and fire accident on July 6, 1988
(Cullen 1990).
The EFEF JIP comprises the following three phases:
r Phase I (April 2008March 2009)
- Literature survey of previous related JIPs
- Technologies for the frequency analysis of gas ex-
plosions and fire on FPSOs
- Technologies for the action analysis of gas explo-
sions and fire
r Phase II (April 2009March 2010)
- Hypothetical design for FPSO topsides
- Wind tunnel tests on FPSO topside modules (e.g.
accommodation) and side-by-side offloading facil-
ities in association with dispersion of flame (heat
and cloud) coming from flare tower or fire with
varying wind direction and strength
- Fire tests on plated and framed structural models
to identify the time-variant temperature actions and
structural consequence (action effects)
- Technologies for the action effect (consequence)
analysis of gas explosions and fire
r Phase III (April 2009March 2011)
- Procedure of QRA and management of gas explo-
sions and fire on FPSO topsides
- Acceptance criteria
- Guidelines and engineering handbook
The results of the study presented here form part of
phase I. The focus of this study was on developing a
modeling technique for CFD simulations to identify the
action characteristics of hydrocarbon explosions and fire
accidents. The ANSYS CFX (2008) code is employed for
this purpose.
2. Analysis of gas explosion actions
2.1. Experimental study
Gieras et al. (2006) carried out a laboratory test on methane
gas explosions. In the present study, their experimental
study was reanalysed via the ANSYS CFX code to develop
a modeling technique for CFD simulations to identify the
pressure actions of these explosions.
Figure 2 shows the layout of the test, in which a 40-dm3
volume chamber was used. Although the concentrations of
methane gas were varied in the original test, the present
study adopted a concentration of 9.5%, equivalent to the
stoichiometric condition, as an illustrative example.
The initial gas temperature inside the explosion cham-
ber was also varied, at 293, 373 and 473 K, and the outside
ambient temperature was kept at 293 K. A pressure gauge
and temperature sensor were attached to the chambers outer
surface.
Figure 3 shows a photo of this test chamber, which was
140 mm in diameter and 441 mm in height.
2.2. CFX simulations
The chemical reaction of the methane gas explosion asso-
ciated with the mixture of air can be represented by
CH4 + 2(O2 + 3.76N2 )
CO2 + 2H2 O + 2(3.76N2 ) + Energy.
After the explosion, energy was released, thus causing a
blast, as shown in Figure 4. The peak pressure was reached
after a very short time and decayed with time.
The ANSYS CFX code is now employed for an analysis
of the explosion actions. Figure 5 shows the CFX model for
the Gieras explosion test using tetrahedral elements. In con-
sideration of the symmetric action feature, a half chamber
is taken as the extent of the analysis. The total number of
nodes and elements were 32,364 and 180,315, respectively,
which were determined based on a convergence study.
In CFX modeling, turbulence is modeled by the k-
epsilon model and radiation by the P1 model. The total
energy model is used to model the heat transfer inside the
chamber. The CFX code facilitates four types of wall heat
transfer options, namely, the adiabatic, temperature, heat
flux and heat coefficient options. The present study used
the temperature option to model the wall heat transfer be-
haviour, so as to reflect an ambient temperature of 293 K.
Figure 6 shows the variations in explosion pressure with
time at (a) 0.002 s, (b) 0.012 s, (c) 0.02 s and (d) 0.132 s, and
Figure 7 shows the explosion pressure versus time history,
as obtained from the CFX simulations. It can be seen from
 Ships and Offshore Structures 5
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017

Figure 2. Layout of the laboratory test facility used for the methane gas explosion (Gieras et al. 2006).

Figure 7 that these simulations are in good agreement with
the experimental results in terms of the pressure versus
time history, which can be characterised by four parameters,
namely, time, peak pressure, type of decay after the peak
pressure has been reached and the duration of the impact
pressure (Paik and Thayamballi 2007).
Figure 7(a) presents the effects of heat transfer modeling
in terms of the thermal or total energy models. It is evident
from this figure that the total energy model, which takes
the kinetic energy effect into account, is more relevant to
an analysis of explosion actions.
Figure 7(b) presents the effects of the chamber wall
heat transfer modeling. It can be seen that the ambient tem-
perature model that is equivalent to the test gives accurate
results, whereas the adiabatic model fails to transfer the
heat energy to the exterior of the chamber.

Figure 4. Explosion pressure versus time history, as obtained

Figure 3. Photo of the chamber used for the explosion test (Gieras from the test with a methane concentration of 9.5% (Gieras et al.
et al. 2006). 2006).
 6 J.K. Paik et al.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017

Figure 5. ANSYS CFX model for the Gieras explosion test using tetrahedral elements.

Figure 6. Variations in explosion pressure with time, as obtained from the ANSYS CFX simulations: (a) 0.002 s, (b) 0.012 s, (c) 0.02 s
and (d) 0.132 s. Illustrations can be viewed in colour online.
 Ships and Offshore Structures 7
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017

Figure 7(a). Effects of the heat transfer model on the explosion Figure 7(b). Effects of the wall heat transfer model on the ex-
pressure versus time history of the Gieras explosion test model, plosion pressure versus time history of the Gieras explosion test
as obtained from the CFX simulations. model, as obtained from the CFX simulations.

Although the time-variant temperatures were not mea-
sured during the test, the CFX simulations provided
time-variant temperature-related information, as shown in
Figure 8. The peak temperature reached more than 2,200
K around 0.1 s after ignition, which is prior to the time
at which the peak pressure is meant to occur, i.e. at 0.2 s.
Figure 8 also indicates that the adiabatic model of wall heat
transfer behaviour also increases the peak temperature.
Figure 9. Figure 10 shows a photo of the jet firing inside
the test compartment.
The temperature measurements at various locations
sometime after the jet firing had begun are shown in
Figure 11. It can be seen that the maximum temperature
was 1400 K and the temperature at location CD was higher

3. Analysis of fire actions

3.1. Experimental study
The HSE (1995) carried out a laboratory test on a jet fire
accident caused by the combustion of propane gases.
The thermally insulated compartment shown in Figure
9 was used for this test. This compartment, which is approx-
imately 135 m3 in volume, has an open door with a breadth
of 2.5 m and a height of 2 m for ventilation purposes. This
door also allows the heat and flame that result from the fire
to flow out.
The jet fire was activated through a 380-mm height by
90-mm diameter nozzle located at the bottom centre of the
compartment. It was supposed that the mass flow of the jet
fire at the nozzle would be 0.33 kg/s, which is equivalent to
a flow velocity of 190 m/s. The outside ambient temperature
of the compartment was kept at 281 K during the test.
The temperatures during the fire were measured via Figure 8(a). Effects of the heat transfer model on the temperature
temperature sensors at various locations or elevations, versus time history of the Gieras explosion test model, as obtained
i.e. at AB and CD and the opening, as indicated in from the CFX simulations.
 8 J.K. Paik et al.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 8(b). Effects of the wall transfer model on the temperature
versus time history of the Gieras explosion test model, as obtained
from the CFX simulations.
than that at AB. This is because the heat flow moves out
via the opening (ventilation).
3.2. CFX simulations
Although the imperfect combustion of propane gases may
produce some CO and C2 H2 , the chemical reaction associ-
ated with the perfect combustion of these gases when mixed
with air can be represented by
C3 H3 + 5O2 3CO2 + 4H2 O.
Figure 9. The jet fire test facility (HSE 1995).
Figure 10. Photo of the jet fire test (HSE 1995).
The ANSYS CFX code is now used for an analysis of the
jet fire actions. Useful CFD simulations of this test have
also been performed in the literature (e.g. Wen and Huang
2000).
Figure 12 shows the CFX model of the jet fire test,
which was developed in the present study using tetrahedral
elements. In consideration of the symmetric action feature,
half of the compartment is taken as the extent of the analysis.
It is generally considered that the heat flow actions out-
side the compartment may also affect the inside action char-
acteristics. Therefore, a certain amount of open air around
the ventilation door was also included in the CFX model,
as shown in Figure 12(b). The total number of nodes and
elements were 30,918 and 165,353, respectively.
The thermal energy model was applied in the CFX mod-
eling for heat transfer behaviour, the eddy dissipation model
for combustion behaviour, the P1 model for radiation be-
haviour and the k-epsilon model for turbulence behaviour.
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 11. Variations in temperature at different locations or
elevations, as obtained in the test (HSE 1995).
In terms of the wall heat transfer modeling, three types
of options were considered, i.e. the adiabatic, temperature
and transfer coefficient models, as discussed previously.
The adiabatic model does not allow any heat flow transfer
out of the compartment via the wall, whereas the temper-
ature model allows it to transfer directly to the ambient
temperature. The transfer coefficient model is capable of
dealing with partial heat transfer behaviour.
Figure 12(a). ANSYS CFX model of the jet fire test using tetra-
hedral elements.
9
Figure 12(b). Extent of the ANSYS CFX model analysis of the
jet fire test for a half of the test compartment with an extended
outside domain.
As the test compartment was thermally insulated, it was
considered that a partial, rather than full, wall heat transfer
should be allowed. The total heat flux via the wall may be
given by
qw = hc (To Tw ),
where qw = the total heat flux; hc = the heat transfer coeffi-
cient, which was taken to be hc = 30 W/m2 K in the present
fire test; To = the external or outside (ambient) tempera-
ture, which was equivalent to 281 K in the present test and
Tw = the internal temperature.
Figure 13 shows the variations in temperature with time
at (a) 0.02 s, (b) 1.0 s, (c) 2.0 s and (d) 9.0 s after the jet
firing had begun, as obtained from the CFX simulations. It
is evident from this figure that the heat flow moves with time
through the opening. Figure 14 presents a comparison of
the temperatures at various locations or elevations between
the test measurements and the CFX simulations.
Although the time-variant temperature characteristics
were not measured in the test, the CFX simulations provided
such information, as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 16 shows the effects of the wall heat transfer
model on the temperature versus time history at location
CD at an elevation of 1.7 m, as obtained from the CFX
simulations. It can be seen from this figure that the adi-
abatic model overestimates the fire temperatures, whereas
the ambient temperature model underestimates them. The
proposed CFX model with a wall heat transfer coefficient of
30 W/m2 K gives very accurate solutions when compared
to the experimental results.
4. Concluding remarks
The aim of the study reported herein was to develop a
CFD modeling technique for the analysis of hydrocarbon
 10 J.K. Paik et al.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017

Figure 13. Variations in temperature with time at (a) 0.02 s, (b) 1.0 s, (c) 2.0 s and (d) 9.0 s.

Figure 14(a). Comparison of temperatures at AB in the test Figure 14(b). Comparison of temperatures at CD in the test
measurements and CFX simulations. measurements and CFX simulations.
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 14(c). Comparison of temperatures at the opening in the
test measurements and CFX simulations.
explosion and fire actions. Existing test data on a methane
gas explosion and propane gas jet fire were reanalysed using
the ANSYS CFX code.
It is concluded that the CFD simulations proposed in
this study are in good agreement with the experimental
results.
This study was limited to laboratory test data obtained
in a closed chamber or compartment, although the topsides
of FPSOs are more likely to be open or partially closed
environments, in which the dispersion behaviour of a blast
Figure 15. Temperature versus time history at various locations
at an elevation of 1.7 m, as obtained from the CFX simulations.
11
Figure 16. Effects of the wall heat transfer model on the tem-
perature versus time history at CD at an elevation of 1.7 m, as
obtained from the CFX simulations.
or heat may play an important role. A related study is thus
on-going as part of the EFEF JIP.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported for two years by a Pusan National Uni-
versity research grant.
References
ANSYS. 2008. ANSYS CFX release 11.0. Canonsburg (PA):
ANSYS Inc.
Cullen L. 1990. The public inquiry into the piper alpha disaster.
London (England): HMSO.
Czujko J. 2001. Design of offshore facilities to resist gas explosion
hazard: engineering handbook. Oslo (Norway): CorrOcean.
Czujko J. 2005. Computational methods in the analysis of ex-
plosion resistant barriers. Proceedings of International Con-
ference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering
(MARINE 2005) Oslo, Norway, June 2729.
Czujko J. 2007. Consequences of explosions in various indus-
tries. Safety and reliability of industrial products, systems
and structures (SAFERELNET 2007).
Gieras M, Klemens R, Rarata G, Wolanski P. 2006. Determination
of explosion parameters of methane-air mixtures in the cham-
ber of 40 dm3 at normal and elevated temperature. J Loss Prev
Process Indust. 19:263270.
HSE. 1995. Large scale compartment fires: experimental details
and data obtained in test comp-27. London (England). Health
and Safety Executive report-OTO94024.
ISO. 2007. International standards ISO 18072-1. Ships and marine
technologyship structures Part 1: General requirements
for their limit state assessment. Geneva (Switzerland).
Nolan DP. 1996. Handbook of fire and explosion protection engi-
neering principles for oil, gas, chemical, and related facilities.
Westwood (NJ): Noyes Publications.
 12 J.K. Paik et al.
Paik JK, Czujko Z. 2008. Joint industry project on explosion and
fire engineering of FPSOs. Proceedings of the workshop on
Design of FPSO Structures; 2008 Nov. 2021; Geoje, Korea.
Paik JK, Melchers RE. 2008. Condition assessment of aged struc-
tures. New York: CRC Press.
Paik JK, Thayamballi AK 2003. Ultimate limit state design of
steel-plated structures. Chichester (England): John Wiley &
Sons.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. 2007. Ship-shaped offshore installa-
tions: design, building, and operation. Cambridge (England):
Cambridge University Press.
Vinnem JE. 2007. Offshore risk assessment. London (England):
Springer-Verlag.
Wen JX, Huang LY. 2000. CFD modeling of confined jet fires
under ventilation-controlled conditions. Fire Saf J. 34:1
24.