MINIMISING UNCERTAINTY IN VAPOUR CLOUD

EXPLOSION MODELLING
Raghu Raman, Kellogg Brown & Root, Sydney, Australia
Paolo Grillo, Kellogg Brown & Root Asia Pacific, Singapore

ABSTRACT

There have been significant advances in consequence modelling of releases of

hazardous materials in the last decade, but the use of simple models for predicting
overpressures from vapour cloud explosions (VCEs) continues to elude safety
practitioners. The TNO multi-energy model has generally been regarded as the best
model available to date, for a rapid assessment of explosion overpressures and
positive phase durations. This model requires two major assumptions to be made - the
level of congestion in the plant that provides obstacles for flame front acceleration,
and the explosion efficiency. The former enables the selection of an appropriate
charge strength from the family of parametric curves in the model. While there has
been some guidance available for making relevant assumptions, there is still a high
level of uncertainty in the model results, and the drag load obtained cannot be
confidently applied as the basis for structural design. Flame acceleration models based
on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) have been developed for gas explosion
modelling in offshore oil and gas facilities. Sensitivity analysis is conducted on these
models, using various cloud sizes and ignition point locations, and the results are
processed into an exceedence curve based on event frequencies, in order to obtain the
best estimate of peak overpressures and drag loads for design purposes. In this paper,
the TNO multi-energy model has been applied to two different configurations of
topsides of offshore installations. In these applications the assumptions regarding
explosion efficiency and charge strength selections have been calibrated against the
results obtained through the CFD modelling, by obtaining a match of the explosion
over-pressures. The paper comments on the findings from this exercise in order to
give guidance on the application of the TNO multi-energy method and on the
selection of model parameters with relation to the equipment lay-out and level of
equipment congestion.

1. INTRODUCTION

Vapour cloud explosions are one of the most devastating events which can occur in
the process industries. It was recognised since the time of the Flixborough incident
that a facility design should include limiting explosion damage (Lawrence and
Johnson 1974). Since Piper Alpha, it is become common practice to design blast walls
on offshore oil and gas facilities, to separate process areas from utility areas and
living quarters. The determination of peak overpressures from gas explosions and
development of design criteria for structural support become more complex due to
high pressure inventories in congested areas.

There are four key factors in an explosion. These are related to the overpressure
which is the pressure rise above normal atmospheric pressure, the positive phase
duration which is the time during which the pressure is above atmospheric pressure,
the degree of confinement of the flammable mixture which causes turbulence and
 2

acceleration of the flame front and influences the overpressure, and the impulse (area
under the pressure-time profile).

It is now well established that it is not the size of the vapour cloud that matters when
it comes to blast strength, but the degree of confinement of the vapour cloud and
congestion in the path of the flame front. In offshore modules, there is additional
confinement in the form of parallel planes formed by deck plating. The energy of
ignition source (e.g. naked flame) plays a dominant role in determining the blast
strength, although a well designed facility with strict implementation of hazardous
area classification requirements in terms of hardware and safety management system
can reduce the strength of a potential ignition source significantly.

The Multi-Energy Model (MEM) for rapid assessment of explosion overpressure has
been developed by TNO (1997). It is based on the concept that significant
overpressures can be generated by the ignition of a vapour cloud only in the presence
of partial confinement or obstacles in the path of the flame front. This model,
however, requires assumptions on the initial blast strength, which significantly
influences the predictions. CFD models used in offshore modules have shown that
rapid assessment models can underestimate the blast overpressures.

CFD models give reasonably good accuracies, and yield solutions that are
approximately correct. They are considered adequate for explosion assessment, given
the uncertainties on the other stages of the overall design process (UKOOA 2003).

CFD modelling of explosion in an offshore facility is generally undertaken only when

piping design is well advanced. Since it is the cluster of small diameter piping, valves
and other fittings that generates turbulence in the accelerating flame front, it is
essential that the 3-D model of the topsides includes as much of small diameter piping
as possible. On the other hand, very often information is required on the drag loads on
equipment and structures from explosions, early in the detailed engineering phase. If
increased confidence can be developed in the rapid assessment tools in providing as
conservative a design blast load as CFD models, it would greatly assist in the design
phase. This can be further verified by CFD models.

In this paper, the TNO multi-energy model has been applied to two different
configurations of topsides of offshore installations. In these applications the
assumptions regarding explosion efficiency and charge strength selections have been
calibrated against the results obtained through the CFD modelling, by obtaining a
match of the explosion overpressures. The paper comments on the findings from this
exercise in order to give guidance on the application of the TNO multi-energy method
and on the selection of model parameters with relation to the equipment layout and
level of congestion.

2. VAPOUR CLOUD EXPLOSION MODELS

A brief outline of the rapid assessment model and CFD models is provided below,
with comments on their limitations and strengths. Rapid assessment models prior to
the TNO Multi-Energy Model (MEM) are not discussed as these do not account for
 3

confinement or congestion that play such a significant role in determining the

magnitude of overpressures.

2.1 TNO Multi-Energy Model

The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) has conducted
extensive research into blast models (van den Berg et al. 1991; Mercx et al. 1998,
2000). The TNO multi-energy model allows for blast strength to be incorporated. The
method considers the total cloud as a series of sub-explosions corresponding to the
various confined or unconfined regions. The confined regions might be parts of the
cloud located under equipment, hemmed in by other structures and pipework or
parallel planes.

The key factor in this model is the ‘blast strength’ which ranges from 1 (insignificant)
to 10 (detonative strength). Figure 1 shows the overpressure versus an energy scaled
distance. Separate curves relate to the blast strength representing the congestion
parameter.

Figure 1: Scaled peak side overpressure for MEM (TNO 1997)

 4

The following parameters describe the MEM:

Scaled overpressure: Po = (P -P )/P

o a a

1/3
Scaled distance: R = R (Pa/E)

where:

Po = side-on absolute blast overpressure (Pa)

R = fuel-air charge radius (m)
Po =
scaled blast overpressure (-)
R = scaled distance (-)
Pa = ambient pressure (Pa)
E = combustion energy in fuel-air mixture (J)

The model also estimates the positive phase duration. Relevant equations may be
found in Mercx et al. (1998).

To apply this method the following steps need to be carried out.

a) Assign portions of the cloud to different areas (e.g. between buildings, under
vessels, in open air)
b) Determine the fuel Vo present in each zone, i.e. amount of gas-air mixture (m3)
and total cloud energy, E (≡ VoEc), based on the heat of combustion of the
fuel. A typical energy density Ec is 3.5 × 106 J/m3.
c) Assign initial strengths to these vapour cloud charges, based on the degree of
confinement.
d) Calculate scaled distances for each charge at nominated distances, R.
e) From figures for Po versus R , estimate overpressure for each charge. If blast
zones are located close to each other and the ignition is essentially
simultaneous, then overpressures can be superimposed at target distances.

The blast overpressure is often expressed in the units of bars gauge for convenience.

The biggest challenge in the use of the multi energy method is the selection of the
charge strength curve. This depends on a number of factors that include:

(i) the level of obstruction within the gas cloud.

(ii) the ignition strength, ‘high’ representing a vented explosion with ‘low’ being
a spark or flame.
(iii) the level of confinement being either an unconfined volume or confined
between surfaces.

A decision table can be constructed (TNO 1997) that considers all factors and relates
these to the blast strength. Mercx et al. (2000) have provided a correlation for the
charge strength Po. These were used to predict overpressures and were found to vary
by a factor of 2 compared with CFD methods.
 5

For offshore oil and gas facilities, Kinsella (1992) has suggested an approach for
selecting the charge strength, accounting for three factors:

• Congestion: Congestion may be defined as the fractional area in the path of the
flame front occupied by equipment, piping, fittings and other structures such as
buildings and supporting columns. If congestion is more than the threshold of
30%, it is considered ‘high’.
• Strength of ignition source: Low (spark, hot surfaces), high (naked flames,
welding)
• Parallel Confinement: Low for grated decks, high for plated decks.

Kinsella provides an initial blast strength matrix based on a combination of the above
parameters. For offshore modules, which have been analysed in this paper, the rule set
is summarised in Table 1 (Kinsella 1992). The ignition source strength is assumed to
be low based on design standards and safety work methods.

Table 1: Initial Blast Strength Assessment

Category High Low Parallel plane Unconfined MEM Initial
Congestion Congestion confinement (grated deck) blast strength
1 X X 5-7
2 X X 4-5
3 X X 3-5
4 X X 2-3

The main advantages of the MEM are that a rapid estimate of peak overpressures can
be obtained for determining adequate separation distances between plant units in
onshore facilities, and for obtaining the initial estimate of drag load on equipment.
The degree of congestion can be assessed by gas dispersion calculations to determine
the flammable gas isopleths for various meteorological conditions, superimposed on
the facility layout plan and elevation.

The main limitations of the model are:

• The model predicts the maximum overpressure at the point of ignition, thereafter
decaying with distance away from the source. In reality, if there are obstacles in
the flame front before sufficient decay occurs, the overpressure can peak again,
sometimes even exceeding the initial overpressure. This phenomenon cannot be
modeled easily, although combining the energy sources has been suggested.

• The model is often used by treating the VCE as an omni-directional incident, i.e.
pressure waves radiating from the ignition location. This is possible only in the
unconfined and uncongested case. In fact, depending on the wind direction, if
there are no obstacles within the isopleth, no overpressure may be generated.
Conversely, if there as significant obstacles, a higher overpressure is generated.
Thus, the size of the vapour cloud, the location of the vapour cloud depending on
wind direction, and the location of ignition source influence the peak overpressure
significantly. This the rapid assessment model often fails to predict to required
level of accuracy for design purposes.
 6

2.2 CFD Models

The growing interest in the use of more fundamental approaches to explosions based
on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has led to the development of a number of
models, now routinely used for off-shore explosion assessments and situations with
complex geometries. The MERGE project in Europe during the early 1990s sought to
understand factors that would lead to improvements in CFD code predictions (Popat
et al. 1996). These models deal with such issues as ignition and laminar flame
propagation, turbulent flame propagation and combustion.

The current status of CFD explosion modelling is given by Bull (2004) and Lea and
Ledin (2002) who cover many issues related to the modelling, solution and validation
of these codes. Of particular significance to CFD approaches are the following:

1. Use of crude approximations to complex geometries

2. Considerable uncertainty in combustion sub-models
3. Importance of considering pre-existing turbulence, such as high pressure gas
releases
4. Simple treatments of turbulence
5. The need for more large-scale experimentation
6. The use of adaptive grid refinement and improved numerical solution schemes
7. Incorporation of flame distortion phenomena and flame interactions
8. Incorporating the interaction of blast-structure effects such that the movement
of structures is considered on the propagation of the blast wave.

Despite the many challenges in developing and applying CFD explosion models,
predictions from these codes in complex offshore and onshore facility geometries
appear to lie within a factor of 2 of the experimental data (Bull 2004). The CFD
explosion model does not yet incorporate a fully realistic combustion model and may
not adequately to represent all important obstacles in real complex geometries.

The major finding in CFD modelling is that, because of turbulence causing flame
acceleration, it is possible to have higher overpressures much further away from the
ignition location, whereas MEM predicts gradual decay of the pressure wave away
from incident location. The MEM is an empirical model based on correlations with
experimental data used to predict far field blast effects outside the gas cloud
combustion region. Therefore it may not address the scenarios typical of offshore
modules where the filling ratio by the gas cloud can be much higher than in onshore
process plants, which are open to atmosphere.

One limitation in the application of CFD models for blast analysis in offshore oil and
gas facilities is that the volume of module filled by flammable gas cloud is unknown,
and hence a sensitivity analysis would be required, using various module fill fractions.
Assumption of full module fill may give high blast overpressures and drag,
introducing over-conservatism in structural design. A front end 3-D dispersion model
to obtain the fraction of volume of module filled by flammable gas cloud, as a
precursor to flame acceleration studies, has been found to be useful.
 7

2.3 The Challenge

CFD models are complex, require significant modeling efforts, and are expensive to
run. At the initial stages of a project, pending CFD analysis, the challenge is: Can we
refine the assumptions required for the rapid assessment model, based on information
generated from gas explosion simulations using 3-D CFD models, in order to have a
similar level of conservatism in the blast design load selected?

The following is an attempt to partially address this challenge.

3. CASE STUDIES ON CFD MODELS

The case studies are based on studies undertaken by KBR for detailed engineering of
two offshore oil and gas platforms. Two contrasting designs, differing in confinement
and ventilation, have been selected to test the versatility of the MEM.

3.1 Platform A - Conventional Design

The platform is consists of an integrated deck structure and a four-legged steel jacket.
There are three principal deck levels. An inclined flare tower is located on the east
side of the platform. A crane is located on the west side of the platform. The platform
is linked by walkway bridge to an adjacent platform.

The deck dimensions are approximately 45 m long by 36 m wide. Approximately

40% of deck area at the north is occupied by utilities. The process areas are located to
the south. A blast wall separates the process and utility areas on the two lower levels.

Process areas on the south side of the blast wall on Levels 1 and 2 have the potential
for gas buildup should a loss of containment occur. In addition to the blast wall to the
north, the modules on Levels 1 and 2 are further confined by solid deck plating above
and below. The modules are also reasonably congested with large items of equipment
and pipework.

3.2 Platform B - Unconfined Design

Platform B selected for this study differs significantly from Platform A in that it has
grated decks and no parallel confinement, and no blast wall. The design has focused
on elimination of serious explosion consequences rather than structural design to cope
with high explosion overpressures.

The platform is approximately 60m long by 40m wide and consists of an integrated
deck structure and a twelve-legged steel jacket. There are five deck levels, including
mezzanine deck above Cellar Deck level. The platform is bridge-linked to two
adjacent platforms. A crane is located on the north side of the platform.

The platform has a largely open structure, with the decks open on all sides and
exposed to winds approaching from all directions. Some wind-shielding is provided at
two of the deck levels by switch room and equipment room walls. Most of the deck
on each level is grated, allowing air and gas movement between the decks. The
 8

modules themselves are congested, with areas of significant blockage to airflow,

caused by large pieces of equipment, structural components, and the accumulative
effect of pipework.

3.3 Blast Simulation Study

Blast simulation studies of the topsides of both Platforms A and B were undertaken
using AUTOREAGAS software. The software has been developed by TNO in the
Netherlands, and has been calibrated and validated against data obtained in the full
scale tests of the Spadeadam test rig. These tests provided important reference data for
the explosion predictions tools (TNO 2004). The AUTOREAGAS model requires the
volume filled by gas as an input and hence a front end gas dispersion analysis was
used to obtain the flammable gas volume in the modules, for various release scenarios
postulated.

For Platform A, it was found that the percentage of module filled by gas varied from
10% to 45%, depending on the size of the release. Stoichiometric composition of
cloud was assumed in the explosion modelling. Larger releases of the rupture type
may give flammable cloud volumes > 50%, but these were not modelled as the
frequency of the ignited release was low, and the event would be screened out in the
frequency exceedence analysis.

For Platform B, very interesting results were obtained in the dispersion analysis.
Owing to the buoyant gas properties and the fact that the decks are considerably
porous, gas clouds spanning several deck levels were obtained. Also, for most
releases, the largest percentage volume fill was not recorded on the source of release
deck, but on a higher deck level.

In general, significant gas cloud sizes were found to occur for large releases and
rupture cases only. For these scenarios, maximum gas clouds of the order 15% to 20%
module fill were estimated. These larger gas clouds formed on the two upper decks.
Cloud volume fractions on the two lower decks were significantly less than 5% of
module fill. The dispersion calculations indicated that small releases such as flange
leaks result in gas clouds that are insignificant in size compared to the volume of the
module (much less than 1%).

Pressure-time history at nominated gauge points was obtained by blast simulation for
various module fills, various locations of the cloud on deck, and various ignition
locations. The time step used in the CFD models was 5 ms, and the mesh step was
1m. More than 50 simulations were undertaken accounting for the release size, the
release location, the wind speed, the wind direction and the locations of the ignition
source within the flammable cloud.

4. CALIBRATION OF MEM BASED ON CFD MODEL RESULTS

4.1 Blast Scenarios Selected for Platform A

Only a limited number of scenarios were selected for the present exercise. The MEM
was applied to the same cloud size and location as the detailed blast study. The
 9

explosion efficiency (% cloud occupied by equipment and obstacles) was estimated

using the layout plan and elevation diagrams. Once calculated, this value was fixed as
one parameter for MEM. The blast strength curve number that best matched the
detailed blast simulation result was then fitted for each scenario selected.

Tables 2 and 3 provide a summary of the scenarios analysed on Levels 1 and 2.

Figures 2 and 3 show the deck layout for Levels 1 and 2, and the gauge points, G1 to
G4 (different for each level).

Figure 2: Platform A - Level 1 Layout with Gauge Points

G3

G2 G4
G1

Table 2: Summary of Blast Scenarios Analysed - Platform A, Level 1

No. Source Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments
HP HP separator Flare HP separator
Separator gas outlet header oil outlet
(G1) (G2) (G3) (G4)
Distance from source to gauge points, m
S1 HP Separator - 7 25 20
S2 Flare header 25 28 - 16
Scaled Energy Distance, R
S1 HP Separator - 0.27 0.95 0.76 20% module fill
S2 Flare header 0.79 0.89 - 0.51 30% module fill
MEM - peak overpressure (barg)
S1 HP Separator 1.0 1.0 0.46 0.63 MEM Curve 7,
Congestion 33%

S2 Flare header 0.4 0.35 0.53 0.53 MEM Curve 6,

Congestion 38%
CFD Model - peak overpressure (barg)
 10

No. Source Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments

HP HP separator Flare HP separator
Separator gas outlet header oil outlet
(G1) (G2) (G3) (G4)
S1 HP Separator 1.00 0.80 0.55 0.70 Ignition on the south
and flame front
moving into deck
S2 Flare header 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.50 Overpressure away
from source higher

Figure 3: Platform A - Level 2 Layout with Gauge Points

G2
G4
G1
G3

Table 3: Summary of Blast Scenarios Analysed - Platform A, Level 2

No. Source Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments
Compressor Glycol HP sep. inlet Flare
gas line (G1) contactor manifold header
(G2) (G3) (G4)
Distance from source to gauge points, m
S3 Compressor - 13 16 17
gas line
S4 Glycol 13 - 4 29
contactor
S5 HP sep. inlet 16 4 - 32
manifold
Scaled Energy Distance, R
S3 Compressor - 0.37 0.46 0.49 30% and 45% module
gas line fill
S4 Glycol 0.37 - 0.12 0.84 10% module fill
contactor
S5 HP sep. inlet 0.46 0.12 - 0.92 20% module fill
manifold
 11

No. Source Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments

Compressor Glycol HP sep. inlet Flare
gas line (G1) contactor manifold header
(G2) (G3) (G4)
MEM - peak overpressure (barg)
S3 Compressor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 MEM Curve 5 to
gas line (45% match ignition at
module fill) cloud edge south.
Congestion 41%
S3 Compressor 1 1 1 1.0 MEM Curve 7 to
gas line (45% match ignition at
module fill) cloud edge north
S3 Compressor 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 MEM Curve 5,
gas line (30% congestion 50%
module fill)
S4 Glycol 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.11 MEM Curve 5, 10%
contactor module fill,
congestion 26%
S5 HP sep. inlet 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 Curve 4, 20% module
manifold fill, congestion 19%
CFD Model - peak overpressure (barg)
S3 Compressor 0.2-0.3 0.1-0.2 0 0-0.3 45% module fill,
gas line ignition at cloud edge
south

S3 Compressor 0.7-1.1 0.5 0.1 1-1.2 45% module fill,

gas line ignition at cloud edge
north
S3 Compressor 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 30% module fill
gas line
S4 Glycol 0.2-0.3 0.2 0 0.1-0.2 10% module fill
contactor
S5 HP sep. inlet 0.5- 0.8 0.5-0.8 0.1-0.3 0.1 20% module fill
manifold

Observations on Tables 2 and 3 are provided in Section 5.

The CFD model, being a 3-D model, is capable of estimating overpressures at gauge
points at any level, for a given ignition of gas cloud at a specified level. This feature is
not possible with MEM.

4.2 Blast Scenarios Selected for Platform B

For a release on Level 1 (the lowest deck), the maximum cloud sizes of 10 and 15%
module fill were on Levels 3 and 4 and not on Level 1 and 2. Similarly, for each
release source, the clouds on decks above the release source deck were more
significant. Therefore, for blast calculations, it is not the release location that matters,
but rather the location of ignition.

Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the scenarios analysed on Platform B. Figures 4

and 5 show the deck layout for Levels 2 and 4 gauge points.
 12

Figure 4: Platform B - Level 2 Layout with Gauge Points

G2

G1
G4 G3

Table 4: Summary of Blast Scenarios Analysed - Platform B, Level 2

No. Cloud Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments
Location
HP separator Oil export Surge Bridge
(G1) pumps (G2) vessel landing
(G3) (G4)
Distance from cloud centre to gauge points, m
S1 Level 2 4 8 5 32 5% fill. Release on
Level 1 (Gas lift)
S2 Level 2 2 6 6 30 3% fill. Release on
Level 2 (HP separator)
Scaled Energy Distance, R
S1 Level 2 0.18 0.41 0.26 1.65
S2 Level 2
0.09 0.28 0.31 1.38
MEM - peak overpressure (barg)
S1 Level 2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.07 MEM Curve 5,
congestion 40%
S2 Level 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 MEM Curve 4,
congestion 35%
CFD Model - peak overpressure (barg)
S1 Level 2 0.24 0.38 0.13 0.07
S2 Level 2 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.04
 13

Figure 5: Platform B - Level 5 Layout with Gauge Points

G3

G2

G1

G4

Table 5: Summary of Blast Scenarios Analysed - Platform B, Level 4

No. Cloud Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments
Location
Gas Turbo- Fuel gas Gas export
compressor generator scrubber pipeline
KO drum (G2) (G3) (G4)
(G1)
Distance from cloud centre to gauge points, m
S3 Level 4 15% fill. Release on
10 17 12 10 Level 1 (Gas lift)
S4 Level 4 8% fill. Release on
10 17 12 10 Level 2 (HP separator)
S5 Level 4 5% fill. Release on
Level 4 (Compressor
KO drum)
10 17 12 10
Scaled Energy Distance, R
S3 Level 4 0.29 0.5 0.35 0.29
S4 Level 4 0.29 0.5 0.35 0.29
S5 Level 4 0.29 0.5 0.35 0.29
MEM - peak overpressure (barg)
S3 Level 4 0.2 0.20 0.2 0.2 MEM Curve 4,
 14

No. Cloud Gauge points for overpressure estimation Comments

Location
Gas Turbo- Fuel gas Gas export
compressor generator scrubber pipeline
KO drum (G2) (G3) (G4)
(G1)
congestion 39%
S3 Level 4 MEM Curve 5,
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 congestion, 39%
S4 Level 4 MEM Curve 4,
0.2 0.20 0.2 0.2 congestion, 39%
S5 Level 4 MEM Curve 4,
0.2 0.20 0.2 0.2 congestion 35%
CFD Model - peak overpressure (barg)
S3 Level 4 0.31 0.17 0.37 0.34
S4 Level 4 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.43
S5 Level 4 0.2 0.15 0.11 0.2

5. STUDY FINDINGS

5.1 Results of MEM Calibration

From Table 2, it is seen that the MEM is able to predict the overpressure to within
20% of the CFD model. The curve numbers of 6 and 7 selected are consistent with
the Kinsella rule set in Table 1.

In Table 3, for Scenario S3, the location of ignition makes a significant difference in
the overpressures generated. Ignition at the south edge of the cloud results in the
flame front propagating away from congestion, thus generating a lower overpressure.
For ignition at the northern edge of the cloud, the MEM prediction is significantly
higher than the CFD model, at some gauge points. Once again, the selection of
ignition point, the path of the flame front thereafter and the obstacles present in its
path, as assessed from the layout, would influence the blast strength selection. For
scenarios S4 and S5, once again most of the predictions are within 20%.

For the unconfined module design, once the cloud size is established on the deck of
interest by gas dispersion analysis, the MEM is able to predict blast overpressures
within 20-40% of that estimated by CFD analysis (Table 4).

The results in Table 5 show a wider departure between CFD model and MEM
prediction in many locations. For congested, but unconfined design, the Kinsella rule
set (Table 1) recommends a blast strength of 4-5. The values actually fall between
those predicted using Curves 4 and 5 individually. This suggests that some form of
averaging may be better than choosing a single initial blast strength.

Another point of interest is that the peak overpressure at a gauge point away from the
point of ignition can be higher than that at the point of ignition, as predicted by the
CFD model. On other hand, MEM predicts a maximum blast strength at the point of
ignition, with decay thereafter, as the flame front advances.
 15

The positive pressure duration was not compared in this exercise, as this information
was not readily available from the blast simulation data, in a useable form.

5.2 Selection of Blast Strength

The present review, even though limited in its application, has shown that it is
possible to refine the blast overpressure predictions using the rapid assessment model.
Some guidance is provided below. Additional work in this area would be required to
convert the guidance into an empirical rule set.

1. The rule set for blast strength selection provided by Kinsella (1972) and abridged
in Table 1 here is a good start for the application of MEM. The calibration check
in this paper has shown that the rule set works well.

2. Reliable gas dispersion results must be available for the selection of blast strength.
Special gas dispersion tools are required for the congested environment of an
offshore module (Savvidas et al. 1999, HSE 2001).

3. A thorough review of the layout is essential in the selection of the blast strength.
The gas dispersion results (% module fill) needs to be superimposed on the layout
(sometimes layouts of more than one module level for unconfined design). The
congestion on the path of the flame front is to be reviewed from two perspectives:
(a) wind direction and (b) location of ignition source. An ignition source at the
middle of the module may result in a lower overpressure as the flame front
advances to the edge, compared to an ignition source at the edge of the module,
with wind directing the flame front into the module. Thus, the flame front has a
longer distance to traverse for module edge ignition.

4. Where there are two different release scenarios from the same source (i.e.
different hole sizes), and the rule set suggests blast strength of say curve 4 or 5,
Curve 4 may be used for the smaller module fill and Curve 5 may be used for the
larger module fill. The % congestion value estimated from layout would also play
a role in determining the blast strength.

6. SUMMARY

An attempt has been made to refine the predictions of peak overpressures in vapour
cloud explosions, using the TNO multi-energy model. The approach involved ‘fitting’
a suitable blast strength curve to an explosion scenario, by matching the overpressure
generated by AUTOREAGAS model on two offshore oil and gas platforms. The
method was applied to two different geometries, one confined with solid deck plating
and a blast wall, and the other unconfined with a porous grated deck for gas
dispersion and explosion venting.

Initial indications are that it is possible to improve the blast prediction to within 20-
40% of the complex 3-D model, by taking into account the layout geometry and the
obstacles in the path of the flame front. The location of ignition point and the strength
of ignition source determine the blast pressure rather than the location of the release
 16

source. The reliability of gas dispersion in assessing the cloud size plays a significant
role in explosion assessment.

Additional work is required in this area to develop an empirical rule set that may be
used for rapid assessment using the MEM. The MEM approach, as it stands, still
requires the heuristic feel of the analyst.

7. REFERENCES

Bjerketvedt, D., J.R. Bakke, and K. Van Wingerden (1997):“Gas explosion

Handbook”, J. Haz. Mat., Vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1-150.
Bull, D.C. (2004): “A critical review of post Piper-Alpha developments in explosion
science for the off-shore industry”, HSE Research Report #89, HMSO, Norwich,
UK.
Health & Safety Executive (UK) (2001): “A model for jet dispersion in a congested
environment”, prepared by Advantica Technologies for HSE, Contact Research
Report 396/2001.
Kinsella, K.G. (1992): “A Rapid Assessment Methodology for the Prediction of
Vapour Cloud Explosion Overpressure”, International Conference on Safety and
Loss Prevention, Singapore.
Lawrence, F.E. and E.E. Johnson (1974): “Design for limiting explosion damage",
Chem Eng., 7, January.
Lea, C.J. and H.S. Ledin (2002): “A Review of the State-of-the-Art in Gas Explosion
Modelling”, Health and Safety Laboratory Report HSL/2002/02, Fire and
Explosion Group, Buxton, UK.
Mercx, W.P.M., van den Berg, A.C. and D. van Leeuwen (1998): “Application of
correlations to quantify the source strength of vapour cloud explosions in realistic
situations: Final report for the project ‘GAMES’, TNO Report, PML1998-C53,
Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
Mercx, W.P.M., van den Berg, A.C., Hayhurst, C.J., Robertson, N.J. and K.C. Moran,
(2000): “Developments in vapour cloud explosion blast modelling”, J. Haz. Mat.,
71, pp. 301-319.
Popat, N.R., Catlin, C.A., Arntzen, B.J., Lindstedt, R.P., Hjertager, B.H., Solberg, T.,
Saeter, O. and A.C. van den Berg (1996): “Investigations to improve and assess the
accuracy of computational fluid dynamic based explosion models”, J. Haz. Mat.,
45, pp.1-25.
Savvidas, C., Tam,V., Cleaver, R.P., Darby, S., Buss, G.Y., Britter, R.E. and
Connolly, S. (1999): “Gas dispersion in a congested, partially confined volume”,
International Conference and Workshop in Modelling the Consequences of
Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials, San Francisco, AIChE.
TNO (1997) Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects (Yellow Book 3rd
edition) CPR14E Part 1, Director-General for Social Affairs & Employment, The
Netherlands.
TNO (2004) Internet website www.tno.com.nl
UKOOA (2003) Fire and explosion guidance Part 1: Avoidance and mitigation of
explosions, Issue 1, October.
van den Berg, A.C., van Wingerden, C.J.M. (1991): “The Vapour Cloud Explosions:
Experimental investigation of key parameters and blast modelling”, Trans.
IChemE., Part B, 69, pp. 139-148.