Comparison of blast prediction models for vapor cloud explosion

Jiang, J.; Liu, Z.G.; Kim, A.K.

NRCC-44715

A version of this paper is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans : The Combustion Institute/Canada Section, 2001 Spring Technical Meeting, 13-16 May 2001, pp. 23.1 - 23.6

www.nrc.ca/irc/ircpubs

Comparison of Blast Prediction Models for Vapor Cloud Explosion*

Juncheng Jiang1, Zhigang Liu2, Andrew K. Kim2 1 Nanjing University of Chemical Technology, Nanjing 210009, P. R. China 2 Fire Risk Management Program, IRC, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa K1A 0R6, Canada

INTRODUCTION
Explosion accidents that occurred in the past have demonstrated that vapor cloud explosions (VCE) is one of the most serious threats to chemical and petrochemical industries [1, 2] . During hazard analysis and risk evaluation, it is necessary to accurately assess the impacts or consequences of possible vapor cloud explosions on the industrial plant. Over the past decades, a variety of prediction models have been developed to predict the blast effect at any given distance from a possible explosion source [3, 4, 5]. However, these models have a limited range of applications, and they provide reasonable results only if they are applied correctly within their intended purposes, otherwise, they may produce misleading results. Currently, there is no clear recommendation on which model is preferred for a specific case under consideration. In the present study, blast prediction models are grouped into three categories according to their features and complexity. These three types of models are briefly reviewed, and their physical background, ranges of validity and applicability are analyzed. In addition, several correlation models that can be used conveniently on a routine basis to predict blast effects generated from vapor cloud explosions were compared. Sample cases were used to compare the validity of the results of these models. Some suggestions on the use of these prediction models are provided in the paper.

TYPES OF VCE MODELS

Blast prediction models for vapor cloud explosion can be grouped into three types according to their features and complexity. They are numerical models, phenomenological models and correlation models.

Numerical Models
Most of these numerical models use a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) approach. This type of model is designed to generate numerical solutions to the partial differential equations governing the explosion processes. Solving the governing equations numerically by iterative method for all the control volumes and repeating these for each successive time step is computational expensive and can take a very long time to compute.
* 1

Supported by NSFC (No. 29936110) and Visiting scholarship supported by CSC Corresponding author. Present Tel: (613)993-9759; E-mail:juncheng.jiang@nrc.ca Permanent Tel: +86-25-3316755-4379; E-mail: jcjiang@njuct.edu.cn

In practice, the control volumes are usually larger than many of the existing obstacles that influence the explosion process. These obstacles are often represented by giving the volume a porosity rather than representing the obstacle explicitly. This method is called Porosity Distributed Resistance (PDR). Among vapor cloud explosion models [6, 7], the most well known numerical VCE model is the Flame Acceleration Simulator (FLACS) and its PC version, FLACS. FLACS was initially developed by Christian Michelsen Research AS (CMR) in Norway for the purpose of simulation of vapor cloud explosions in offshore modules. It has been extended to cover a wide range of plant geometry and fuels encountered onshore. There are some other computer models that are based on the CFD model. For example, REAGAS is a computer model developed by TNO Prins Maurits laboratory (PML) in Netherlands. Another, EXSIM, is a computer model developed by B.H. Hjertager at Telemark technology R&D Center (Tel-Tek) in Norway. All of these computer models are developed for the purpose of simulating realistic explosion scenarios. The models should fully consider the effects of obstacles and geometry on the flow, turbulence and the flame in the process of a VCE, however, some of the current CFD computer models may not include full effect of these parameters. There are many other CFD computer models that were developed for a range of applications, such as fire safety, vehicle collision and vapor cloud explosion problems. One example of these is PHONEX. PHONEX is known to work well for fire safety as well as for vapor cloud explosion problems. Probably, CFD computer models are the most powerful tools for the simulation of vapor cloud explosions because all the important factors that affect the VCE can be included in the modeling. For example, CFD models can account for non-homogeneous mixtures of fuel and oxidant while other types of models only consider a homogeneous stoichiometric cloud. In addition, CFD models can predict more detailed and accurate results than the other types of models. Their results are also ideally suited to the production of computer animations to assist in the understanding of the processes of vapor cloud explosions. The drawback of CFD models is that they still require significant computer power, and this requirement increases the cost and time needed for the simulation of VCE process.

Phenomenological Models
Phenomenological models are also called physical models. These models are simplified models, which attempt to model the essential physical process of a vapor cloud explosion based on idealized geometry and empirical correlation. The major simplification in this type of model is that the actual geometry of the problem is converted to an equivalent geometry that the model can handle. Phenomenological models can be very effective when the actual geometry has a structure with repeated rows of similar obstacles. Representatives of this type of models are the SCOPE and CLICHE models.

The SCOPE (Shell Code for Overpressure Prediction in Gas Explosion model) model was produced by Shell Research [8]. It is capable of predicting the likely overpressures generated by an ignited vapor cloud in a confined and congested space. It simulates the progress of a flame through a confined or vented box and predicts the pressures generated. SCOPE is ideally suited for application to the geometry encountered in offshore modules, but it is improper to use the model in a congested but largely unconfined geometry that is typical in onshore chemical and petrochemical plants. The CLICHE model has been developed for vapor cloud explosion by British Gas, and is a part of the CHAOS modeling package [4, 9]. It can be used to assess vapor cloud explosions in confined volumes that contain many distributed obstacles. Initially, this model was developed from an empty volume model specifically for offshore type modules and has now been used widely in modeling offshore scenarios. This model is also not appropriate for use in the congested but largely unconfined spaces in onshore chemical and petrochemical plants. Phenomenological models take into account the physical processes of an explosion in a simplified way and can predict explosion pressure over a wide range of conditions. However, this type of models has simplified the explosion processes and some models rely on empirical correlation to simulate some of the explosion processes, and this may affect the prediction accuracy.

Correlation Models
Correlation models are also known as empirical models or scaling law models. They were developed based on experimental results. This type of models include the TNT equivalence model, TNO model, Multi-energy model (ME model) and congestion assessment model (CAM model). The TNT equivalence model is the oldest model used to assess the effects of gas explosion [10]. In this model, the energy released from an explosion is assumed to equate to a mass of TNT that would give an equivalent amount of energy. Once an equivalent amount of TNT has been adopted, the explosion characteristics and the possible damage are derived from the large amount of data available from TNT explosions. The TNT equivalence model is easy to use and has a wide range of applications, because it does not require the vapor cloud size or the space conditions as input parameters. However, the TNT equivalence model has some limitations to be used for vapor cloud explosions: (1) the shape of the blast wave of TNT explosion is different from that of VCE. A TNT explosion is of shorter-duration and produces higher-overpressure than VCE for the same energy; (2) the impact of the blast wave of TNT explosion on structures is quite different compared to that of VCE. This is particularly important for predicting the explosion damage near the explosion source. Therefore, the use of TNT equivalence model is not recommended for predicting the result of VCE, especially in the vicinity of the explosion. The TNO model was developed by Wiekema [11]. The model can estimate the blast parameters, such as peak pressure and the duration of the positive pressure phase, of a vapor

cloud explosion. Unlike the TNT equivalence model, the TNO model incorporates the characteristics of the explosion, such as the explosion fuel. It accounts for the effects of fuel reactivity on the blast characteristics by distinguishing fuel reactivity into three regions: low reactivity, average reactivity and high reactivity. It also tries to accounts for the effect of obstacles in the congested region on the blast characteristics such as flame acceleration by relating the boundary of the reactivity region to the obstacle density, even though this approach is not adequate. The ME model was developed by van den Berg[12, 13] in 1980s. This model recognizes the effect of congestion on explosion process and the increased blast generated by the resulting turbulent flame. The model assesses the effect of different degrees of congestion in the space. A vapor cloud in a confined and/or obstructed space will produce a major blast, while a vapor cloud in an unconfined and unobstructed space will burn without producing a blast. An Explosion strength index, varying from 1 to 10, is assigned to the type of space, with 1 representing weak explosion in an unobstructed and unconfined space, and 10 representing a detonation. Explosion strength index of 7 would correspond to a very strong explosion in a highly congested area such as within a dense process block or bank of pipes. The ME model can estimate maximum static and dynamic pressures, duration of positive pressure phase and overpressure/time profile of vapor cloud explosion. The CAM model has been developed by Shell Research from the earlier work of A.T. and has much in common with the ME model. As originally developed, the source Cates strength of an explosion was derived from a decision tree and the decay of blast wave was obtained from a simple formula. Since the initial development, the CAM model was modified to include the estimation of pulse duration and shape, and it is now capable of making more detailed prediction of explosion in an obstructed situation. Furthermore, it can also account for the reactivity of different fuels.
[14]

Correlation models have a limited range of applications, because it can only be used within the range of geometry and the scale of the experiments from which the correlations were derived. However, since correlation models are easy to use, many investigators are using them in a risk analysis to predict blast effects from vapor cloud explosions.

COMPARISON OF SEVERAL CORRELATION MODELS

To examine the validity of the results of several correlation models, two actual cases were used to evaluate these models. The overpressure vs. distance from the explosion center predicted by these models are compared with the results observed in the Flixborough accident (1974) and with those in the La Mede Refinery accident (1992) [15, 16]. The results are shown in Fig.1 and Fig.2. As shown in the figures, the predicted results from the four models show approximately the same trend as the observed results. However, it is clear that among the four models, the TNO model performed worst in the two cases studied. The TNO model consistently underestimated the results compared to the observed results. The TNT model overestimated the explosion overpressure in the vicinity of the explosion while underestimating the explosion overpressure at

1000

100

Overpressure (kpa)

Observed CAM TNO ME TNT

10

0.1 10

100

1000

10000

Distance from explosion center (m)

Fig.1 Comparison between observed and predicted results (Flixborough)

1000

100

Overpressure (Kpa)

Observed CAM TNO ME TNT

10

0.1 10

100

1000

10000

Distance from explosion center (m)

Fig.2 Comparison between observed and predicted results (La Mede)

longer distance. The results of the ME model and the CAM model fit closely with the observed results.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

(1) CFD computer models are the most powerful tools for simulation of vapor cloud explosions. Therefore, they are suitable for detailed research into a VCE process. Phenomenological models are based on the underlying physical processes and are more reliable than correlation models, thus, they are suitable for safety evaluation in the design period of a plant. Correlation models have a very limited range of applications. But, since they are easy to use, they are suitable for use in risk analysis on a routine basis. (2) Comparison of four correlation models using two actual cases shows that the results of the ME and CAM models are very close to the observed results, while the results of TNO model is consistently lower than actual data. The TNT model overestimated the explosion overpressure in the vicinity of the explosion while underestimating the explosion overpressure at

longer distance. Therefore, the ME and CAM models should be the first choice for risk analysis on a routine basis.

REFERENCES
1. Zhang Guoshun, Causes and Lessons of five explosion accidents, J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industry. 2000, 13: 439-442. 2. Eric M. Lenior, and John A. Davenport, A survey of vapor cloud explosions: Second update, Process Safety Progress. 1993, 12(1): 12-26. 3. Wan Sanming, Jiang Juncheng, and Feng Shiyuan, Hazards evaluation of major explosion accidents, progress in safety science and technology. Chemical Industry Press. In: Beijing. 2000, Vol.2 Part A: 523-526. 4. M.H. Goose, Explosion simulation, Fire and explosions: recent advances in modeling and analysis, Professional Engineering Publishing for the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. March 1999, 15-22. 5. D.K. Pritchard, D.J. Freeman, and P.W.Guilbert, Prediction of explosion pressures in confined spaces, J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industry. 1996, 9(3): 205-215. 6. N.R. Popat, C.A. Catlin, and B.J. Arntzen, etc. Investigation to improve and assess the accuracy of computational fluid dynamics based explosion models, Journal of Hazardous Materials. 1996, 45: 1-25. 7. B.H. Hjertager, and T. Solberg, A review of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling of gas explosions, Prevention of hazardous fires and explosions: the transfer to civil application of military experiences. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1999. 8. J.S. Puttock, M.R. Yardley, and T.M. Cresswell, Prediction of vapor cloud explosion using SCOPE model, J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industry. 2000, 13: 419-431. 9. R.P. Cleaver, C.E. Humphreys, J.D. Morgan, and C.G. Robinson, Development of a model to predict the effects of explosions in compact congested regions, Journal of Hazardous Materials. 1997, 53: 35-55. 10. Geoff Wells, Major hazards and their management, Institute of chemical engineers. 1997, pp83-94. 11. B.J. Wiekema, Vapor cloud explosion model, Journal of Hazardous Materials. 1980, 3: 221232. 12. W.P.M. Mercx, and A.C. van den Berg, The explosion blast prediction model in the revised CPR 14E(Yellow Book), Process Safety Progress. 1997, 16(3): 152-159. 13. A.C. van den Berg, The multi-energy method: a framework for vapor cloud explosion blast prediction, Journal of Hazardous Materials. 1985, 12: 1-10. 14. J.S. Puttock, Fuel gas explosion guideline the congestion assessment method. Second European conference on major hazards onshore and offshore, ICHEME, RUGB, UK. 1995. 267-276. 15. S. Hiset, B.H. Hjertager, and T. Solberg, etc. Flixborough revisited and explosion simulation approach, Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2000, A77: 1-9. 16. R.F. Barton, Fuel gas explosion guidelines practical application. ICHEME Symposium series No.139. pp:285-296.