CMR 99 F30063 - Smedis

FLACS SIMULATIONS OF SMEDIS SCENARIOS
Client FLUG members
Author: Thor Gjesdal Hans-Christen Salvesen Benoit Buffet
Bergen, December 1999 Ref.nr.: CMR-99-F30063
Confidential Copy no.: .................
SUMMARY
In this report we describe FLACS predictions of dense gas dispersion experiments contributed to the SMEDIS (Scientic Model Evaluation of dense gas DISpersion models) project. The predictions agree well with experimental measurements and give condence in the capabilities of FLACS to predict dense gas release and dispersion scenarios.
ii
FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios
1 of 53
CONTENTS
List of Figures 1 Introduction 2 SMEDIS validation strategy and comparison parameters 2.1 Validation strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Physical comparison parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Statistical performance parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EEC550 and EEC551 experiments 3.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . 3.2 Computational grid . . . . . . 3.3 Source denition . . . . . . . 3.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 5 7 7 7 9 11 11 11 11 14 19 19 19 19 23 23 23 24 24 29 29 29 29 31 35 35 35 35 36
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
4 DAT638 experiment 4.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Scaling and computational grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Thorney Island test 21 5.1 Experimental setup 5.2 Computational grid 5.3 Gas composition . 5.4 Results . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
6 EMU chlorine release experiment 6.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . 6.2 Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Gas composition . . . . . . . 6.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 EEC170 and EEC171 experiments 7.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . 7.2 Computational grid . . . . . . 7.3 Source denition . . . . . . . 7.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Christian Michelsen Research AS
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
CMR-99-F30063 Condential
2 of 53
8 EEC560 and EEC561 experiments 8.1 Experimental setup . . . . . . 8.2 Computational grid . . . . . . 8.3 Source denition . . . . . . . 8.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Summary and conclusions References
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
43 43 43 43 46 51 53
3 of 53
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 9.1 EEC551. Plan of the experimental site . . . . . . . . . . . EEC551. Grid, monitor, and obstacle layout . . . . . . . . EEC550. Concentration contours at ground level . . . . . EEC551. Concentration contours at ground level . . . . . EEC550 simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison EEC551 simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 14 15 16 16 20 21 22 24 25 27 28 30 32 33 36 37 38 39 40 41 44 45 46 47 48 49 52
DAT638 simulated gas cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAT638 simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison . . . . . . DAT638 simulated vs. experimental arc-wise comparison . . . . . . . Sensor locations for the Thorney Island experiment . . TI21 interaction of the gas cloud with the fence . . . . TI21 simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison TI21 arc-wise dose comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EMU DJ. Overview of the source area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EMU DJ. 2D plot of concentration in the release plane . . . . . . . . EMU DJ. Simulated and experimental point-wise comparison . . . . . EEC171. EEC171. EEC170. EEC171. EEC170. EEC171. Plan of the experimental site . . . . . . . . . . . . Grid and obstacle layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concentration contours close to the ground . . . . Concentration contours close to the ground . . . . Simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison Simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EEC561. Plan of the experimental site . . . . . . . . . . . EEC561. Grid, monitor, and obstacle layout . . . . . . . . EEC560. Concentration contours at ground level . . . . . EEC561. Concentration contours at ground level . . . . . EEC560 simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison EEC561 simulated vs. experimental point-wise comparison
Geometric Mean Bias vs. Geometric Mean Variance for all test cases .
4 of 53
5 of 53
1. INTRODUCTION
SMEDIS (Scientic Model Evaluation of dense gas DISpersion models) is a joint European project conducted under the CECs Environment and Climate Programme 1996-1999. The objective of the project is:
To develop and test a protocol for a Scientic Model Evaluation (SME) of Dense Gas Dispersion (DGD) Models. To use this protocol to carry out an SME of DGD models in current use.
SMEDIS partner DNV invited CMR to take part in the evaluation exercise, and CMR has contributed FLACS documentation and predictions for selected test cases to the project. This report documents the FLACS predictions and comparison with experimental measurements for the SMEDIS test cases. Although predictions of release and dispersion of dense gas is within the capabilities of FLACS, it has not been extensively used in this eld. Salvesen [1] has developed a model to calculate source denitions for ashing liquid release that can be used as input to FLACS. Salvesen and Asheim [2] performed predictions of some DGD scenarios. Several of the SMEDIS test cases are concerned with ashing release of liquid propane. These cases can therefore be used to validate both the ashing model within its range of applicability as well as the capabilities of FLACS to predict dense gas dispersion. The SMEDIS test cases described in this report were generated during the following projects:
The BA-Propane eld tests conducted near Lathen, Germany. A laboratory experiment performed at the University of Hamburg. The well-known Thorney Island eld tests. A eld experiment concerning release of chlorine at an industrial facility in Amlwch, Wales.
The test cases were organized as three batches of data sets, and in this report we document the cases in the order they were performed. The results show that FLACS is quite capable of performing reliable predictions of dense gas dispersion scenarios. While we do not have enough results to perform a full validation and to estimate the uncertainty in the computed results, the good performance of the FLACS predictions across the board gives us condence in the capabilities of FLACS as a dense gas dispersion model.
6 of 53
7 of 53
2. SMEDIS VALIDATION STRATEGY AND COMPARISON PARAMETERS 2.1 Validation strategy

Two strategies were employed for comparison of model predictions and observations in SMEDIS. These are commonly referred to as:
Concentration paired in space and time (CPST) in which primary target data (concentration) are compared to primary measurements paired in space and time The maximum arc-wise concentration (MAC) approach in which secondary or derived predictions are compared to manipulated experimental data, notably maximum concentration and plume width at specied downwind distances.
In SMEDIS the CPST approach were modied by the use of time averaging to produce best estimates of ensemble average values for comparison with the output from the generally ensemble averaged models. Thus the data are paired in space only (CPS) since the time element is removed by the use of time averaging. The MAC approach seeks to compare the downwind extent of the cloud and the variation of maximum concentration with downwind distance irrespective of the wind direction and its uctuations. It cannot, however, be used to assess the degree to which a model predicts the spatial extent of the regions of high concentration within the cloud. It is therefore less appropriate for the assessment of models, such as CFD models, that have a capability to predict internal cloud structure.
2.2 Physical comparison parameters

For a given validation case the physical parameters to be compared depend on the type of the release. Two types of parameter are dened for each type of release :
point-wise comparison parameters (paired data) - values at each sensor arc-wise comparison parameters (derived data) - values at each arc
2.2.1 Concentration time series At each sensor the concentration of released material is measured and recorded in the form of a time series that we denote by , where is the position of sensor number The concentration measurements are recorded for a nite time, i.e. the time series is dened for . To calculate the time integrals of concentration, we may restrict the time range to .
8 of 53
2.2.2 Time-averaged concentration For each sensor location where a concentration time series is available we dene the time-averaged concentration over the period by
2.2.3 Dose and related quantities We dene the dose for each concentration sensor by integration of the original time series over the period :
The time of arrival is the time at which a given fraction ( occurred at that point
) of the dose has
and, similarly, for the time of departure
2.2.4 Maximum concentration at a point We dene the maximum concentration at a point by dividing the period of the time series into equal segments. is taken to be the maximum average value over these time sub-intervals.
where . If the time segment that contains the maximum concentration is indexed by , then the time of maximum concentration is dened to be in the middle of this time segment
2.2.5 Sensor arc quantities The concentration sensors are usually arranged in some ordered pattern over the test site. In plan view, this ordered pattern may be arranged on a polar or Cartesian grid. For each test, sensor arcs can be dened that are at the same downwind distance from
CMR-99-F30063 Condential Christian Michelsen Research AS
9 of 53
the source either exactly for a polar arrangement or approximately for a Cartesian arrangement. For each sensor arc, the arc-wise maximum of a quantity is simply the arithmetic maximum of the values of the quantity at the sensors in the arc. The cloud width on a given arc and at a given time , , is derived from the arc-wise concentration distribution. If is the concentration distribution across the arc or a quantity derived from it, then the width is dened as a multiple, of the standard deviation of
was used in the SMEDIS project. The standard deviation is given by

to use in the calculation of the moments
and the th moment of
is

The choice of which physical quantity depends on the release type:
For continuous releases the time-averaged concentrations at each sensor on the arc are used to dene . For instantaneous releases the dose at each sensor on the arc is used to dene
2.3 Statistical performance parameters

For cases in which few data points are involved it is often possible to evaluate a model/data comparison by eye. In SMEDIS, however, due to the potentially large number of data points, this comparison was assessed using statistical performance measures (SPMs) as quantitative tools. The SMEDIS Project has considered a large number of possible measures to compare the performance of predictive models against experimental data [3]. The main objective of SMEDIS is not to rank models and no attempt has therefore been made to combine measures to produce a single quantitative performance parameter. The project has performed a review of a wide range of the available performance measures for model assessment in order to investigate model performance for complex situations and to test out a variety of validation approaches. The following criteria were used in SMEDIS to evaluate the different performance measures:
Christian Michelsen Research AS CMR-99-F30063 Condential
10 of 53
Measures must be applicable at both low and high concentration levels to be able to handle on-axis data and LFL concentrations and plume edges and toxic concentrations. Thus they must weigh all pairs of observations and predictions equally, independent of absolute concentration. Measures must be capable of distinguishing between model performance, and indicate if a model, in general, over- or under-predicts. They must also indicate the level of scatter or random deviation from this average under- or overprediction. If spatially-paired data are to be used, is that they must be capable of accepting zero predicted or measured concentrations.
Based on the above criteria, a number of statistical performance measures were chosen to be used in the SMEDIS evaluation. We give the denition of each of these below. We consider a set of observed and predicted quantities that we denote by and , respectively. To obtain a measure for the comparison of observed and predicted values, we let denote the average over the pairs of data and we dene the parameters Mean Relative Bias (MRB):
Mean Relative Square Error (MRSE):
Factor of (FA):
Geometric Mean Bias (MG):
Geometric Mean Variance (VG):
According to SMEDIS [3], these parameters seem to perform well and to provide consistent results. In particular the MRB, MRSE and FA2 seem to fulll most of the criteria. Although MG and VG are somewhat similar to MRB and MRSE, both pairs of measures were adopted for the project to allow comparison with previous work. MG and VG are not applicable for zero concentrations, and to overcome this a sensor threshold value of was applied to the data.
11 of 53
3. EEC550 AND EEC551 EXPERIMENTS

Test 55 of the BA-Propane experiments consisted of a continuous jet release of liquid propane. The jet was obstructed by a 2m high linear fence downstream of the release point. The obstacle was removed in the middle of the experiment such that two data sets were generated. It is thus possible to compare the dispersion with and without the obstacle. The two data sets are denoted by EEC550 and EEC551 for the non-obstructed and obstructed case respectively.
3.1 Experimental setup

Liquid propane was released through nozzle to form a liquid jet. The propane was released at a rate of . The duration of the release was , the average wind speed during the test was , and the wind direction formed an angle with the release direction. The fence was located from the source. Fig. 3.1 shows a plan of the experimental site with the fence and the sensor locations.
3.2 Computational grid

To facilitate grid renement by stretching towards the jet axis, the coordinate system was rotated to align the jet direction with the -direction. The computational domain covers an area of in the horizontal plane and a height of , and is covered by a grid comprising cells. Fig. 3.2 shows the horizontal grid, and the layout of the obstacle and the monitor points in the source region. The vertical grid is uniform close to the ground to resolve the height of the fence with ve control volumes. Above the height of the fence the grid is stretched towards the top of the domain.
3.3 Source denition

Because of the sudden de-pressurization during the release, the propane will undergo a ash vaporization and turn into a two-phase aerosol jet. FLACS can only handle gaseous releases, and we therefore used the FLASH utility program [1] to dene an equivalent source at a point where all liquid in the jet has evaporated. For the release considered in the EEC55 test, the virtual source is located downstream of the release point and is characterized by


12 of 53
100
80
60
40
20
0 -20
20
40
60
80
Figure 3.1: Plan of the release point and direction, fence, and sensor locations for the EEC551 test. The release was located in the origin, the two other arrows indicate the wind direction.
13 of 53
Y (m)
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
-30 X (m) -0 Job=491003. Time= 160.010 (s). IJ plane, K=1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Y (m)
40 M3
M2 M7
30
20 M1 10
M5 M4 M6 M14 M12 M31 M43 M32 M15 M13 M33 M17 M19 M18
M8
M10 M9 M34 M48
M11
-10
M16
-20
M20
-30
M21 X (m) -0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Job=491003. Time= 160.010 (s). IJ plane, K=1
Figure 3.2: Grid, monitor, and obstacle layout for the simulation of the EEC550 and EEC551 tests.
14 of 53
Y (m) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -0 10 20 30 40
X (m) 50 60 70 80
Job=490903. Var.=LOG10(FUEL (-)). Time= 150.007 (s). IJ plane, K=1
Figure 3.3: Field plot of propane mass fraction at ground level for the simulation of the to EEC550 test. The scale is logarithmic and the range is from
by volume
Air has been entrained into the jet during the evaporation, and the propane in the jet has therefore been diluted. See [1] for a description of the modeling of the evaporation region.
3.4 Results
We show contour plots of the steady-state concentration eld at ground level for the non-obstructed and obstructed case in Fig. 3.3 and Fig. 3.4, respectively. We see that there is a signicant deection of the jet by the fence. As a consequence is the jet downstream of the fence much wider than in the un-obstructed case. Time histories of the mass fraction of the released gas were recorded for all the sensor locations. Volume fractions were extracted from the recorded mass fraction to compute the mean concentrations for all the sensor locations. The average was performed over a period of 60s during steady state conditions, such that the initial build-up of the jet was not taken into account for the calculation of the mean values.

Y (m) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 X (m)
15 of 53
We show the point-wise comparison of simulated and experimental values in Fig. 3.5 and Fig. 3.6. There is good agreement between the experimental and predicted values for the sensors located at ground level (120) in particular for the un-obstructed case. In the obstructed case there are greater variation in the results, the signicant underpredictions that we see for some sensors are for locations immediately downstream of the fence or at the edge of the cloud. For sensor positions above ground level (14m height) are the differences between the measured and predicted values larger. We present a quantitative comparison of measured and predicted values in terms of the statistical performance measures in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. These quantities conrm that the FLACS predictions are in good agreement with the experimental measurements.
16 of 53
EEC550, Mean conc.

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Sensor no.
Figure 3.5: Comparison of simulated and experimental mean concentration for all sensors of the EEC550 test.
EEC551, Mean conc.

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Sensor no.
17 of 53
Table 3.1: EEC550. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values. Parameter MRB MRSE MG ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 All sensors
Width
Table 3.2: EEC551. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values. Parameter MRB MRSE MG ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 All sensors
Width
18 of 53
19 of 53
4. DAT638 EXPERIMENT
Experiment DAT638 consisted of a test of instantaneous release of heavy gas at laboratory scale. A cylindrical column of gas with mole weight 146.1 was released on a at, sloping plane.

The initial gas column had a diameter and height . The data in the SMEDIS data set was scaled up to eld scale. There were no external wind eld and no obstructions, the motion of the gas was only driven by gravity effects on the sloping surface. The surface slope is given by =11.6% which means that the . angle between the sloping plane and the horizontal plane was
4.2 Scaling and computational grid

The laboratory experiment had a characteristic length scale , and time scale . At full scale the corresponding scales were and , which gives up-scaling factors of and The grid is oriented with the -axis in the direction of steepest descent of the sloping plane, and the -axis normal to the sloping plane. The computational domain covers the region , , and . The initial gas column was located in the origin. We have taken advantage of the symmetry of the situation by using a symmetry plane located at . The grid is nest close to the origin with a spacing of , with stretching towards the boundaries. For the major part of the domain is however the grid spacing less than 4m. In the vertical direction, the grid is stretched from the sloping plane towards the top of the domain. The height of the initial gas column, , is covered by 8 control volumes.
4.3 Results
We show a three-dimensional representation of the gas cloud in Fig. 4.1. We can see clearly the effect of gravity in this plot. The cloud is not symmetrical with respect to radial distance from the origin for a xed height. The front of the cloud is tallest in the direction of steepest descent for the sloping plane. The front has also reached farther in the downhill than in the uphill direction, as expected. Time histories of the mass fraction of the released gas were recorded for all the sensor locations. Volume fractions were extracted from the recorded mass fraction to compute the dose and related quantities, and maximum concentrations for all the sensor locations.
20 of 53
Z (m) 50
0 0 50 100 -50 150 Y (m) 0
50
100
150
X (m)
Job=491100. Var.=FUEL (-). Time= 30.164 (s). I=6-80, J=1-34, K=1-15.
Figure 4.1: Simulated gas cloud at of released gas are shown.
for the DAT638 test. Mass fractions
3%

DAT638, Dose
10 10
21 of 53
DAT638 Max. conc.
SIM/EXP
SIM/EXP
0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sensor no.
Sensor no.
DAT 638, Arrival time

10
DAT 638, Departure time

10
SIM/EXP
SIM/EXP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.1
0.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Sensor no.
Sensor no.
Figure 4.2: Comparison of simulated and experimental quantities for all sensors of the DAT638 test. We show the point-wise comparison of simulated and experimental values in Fig. 4.2. We see that there is very good agreement between the measurements and predictions for all the quantities. Note that there is a consistent over-prediction for the maximum concentration at all the sensor locations. We show the dose and the maximum concentrations across two sensor arcs, located at and in Fig. 4.3. Also here we note the good correspondence between the measured and the predicted quantities, that the prediction of the width of the cloud is reasonable, and that the maximum concentrations are over-predicted by a factor 1.52. We present a quantitative comparison of measured and predicted values in terms of the statistical performance measures in Table 4.1. These quantities conrm the good agreement with the experimental data that we observed in the gures above.
22 of 53
Arc at x=101m
1000 10
Arc at x=101m
500
Max. conc. (%)
Dose (%* s)
750
7.5
250 Simulation Experiment 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 0
2.5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance across (m)
Distance across (m)
Arc at x=201m
1000 10
Arc at x=201m
750
Max. conc. (%)
7.5
Dose (%* s)
500
250
2.5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance across(m)
Distance across(m)
Figure 4.3: Simulated and experimental dose and maximum concentration for the sensor arcs in the DAT638 test.
Table 4.1: DAT638. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values. Parameter MRB MRSE MG ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 All sensors
23 of 53
5. THORNEY ISLAND TEST 21

Test 21 of the Thorney Island (TI21) experiments was an instantaneous release of a cylindrical column of dense gas. The initial gas column collapses under the effect of gravity, and interacts with a semi-circular obstruction down-wind of the release point [4]. The experiment has previously been simulated by FLACS [2]. These simulations were performed with a symmetry plane along the axis of the experimental site to save computational resources. The simulated results were in fair qualitative agreement with the experimental data and other simulations of the experiment found in the literature. A new simulation of the TI21 test was performed for the SMEDIS evaluation. Because the wind during the test was not parallel to the axis of the experimental site, we have abandoned the assumption of symmetry used in the previous simulations.

The gas mixture was initially conned within a cylindrical column that was 13m tall and had a diameter of 14m, and was located at the centre of a semi-circular fence that had a height of 5m and a diameter of 50m. The reference wind speed during the experiment was , and the wind direction was relative to the main axis of the experiment ( -axis in the simulations). Time histories of the concentration of released gas were recorded by 144 sensors located at different positions and at four different heights (0.4m, 2.4m, 4.4m, and 6.4m). The locations of the sensors in the horizontal plane are shown in Fig. 5.1. Note that some of the sensors are organized in a semi-circular pattern that dene arcs of sensors that are equidistant from the source.
The computational grid comprised approximately 150000 cells and covers a domain , . The source is located at m. The horizontal resolution of the grid is m in the region that contains the source and the semi-circular fence. Outside this region the grid is stretched towards the boundaries. The maximum stretching ratio is . The vertical resolution close to the ground is approximately 0.3m. The maximum vertical stretching factor is also . The minimum and maximum control volume sizes in the simulations were
24 of 53
700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 100 Sensor locations 75m arc 100m arc
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure 5.1: Sensor locations for the Thorney Island experiment. Sensor arcs at 75m and at 100m distance from the source.
5.3 Gas composition

The TI21 experiment was performed with a mixture of the refrigerant R12 and Nitrogen as the model gas. The concentration of R12 in the mixture was by volume or by mass. The molecular weight of R12 is and that of nitrogen is . The effective molecular weight of the mixture is then
(Note that in the data set the effective molecular weight is given as which corresponds to a mixture of R12 and air.) We performed FLACS simulations with Butane as the model gas. Butane was chosen as the model gas because the molecular weight of Butane ( ) is close to the effective molecular weight for the mixture, and the properties of Butane are already implemented in FLACS.
5.4 Results
Initially the gas column collapses almost radially before the released gas is swept downstream towards the fence by the wind. In Fig. 5.2 we show the interaction of the gas cloud with the semi-circular fence at different times. The experimental data set comprises the integrated dose , cloud time of arrival , and cloud time of departure, for 83 sensor locations. In addi-
25 of 53
Figure 5.2: Thorney Island Test 21; interaction of the gas cloud and the semi-circular fence.
26 of 53
Table 5.1: Thorney Island Test 21. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values. Parameter MRB MRSE ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dose
tion, quantities such as maximum dose and concentration, and the cloud width were recorded for six sensor arcs placed at different heights 75m and 100m from of the initial puff. Each arc comprises ve sensors placed symmetrically with respect to the main axis of the experiment. Time histories of the mass fraction of the released gas were recorded for all the sensor locations. The recorded mass fractions were the converted into volume fractions, and the dose, arrival time, and departure time calculated. In Fig. 5.3 we compare the measured and simulated values for , , and for the sensors for which measurements are available. For all three quantities we nd that there is an overall good agreement between the measured and the simulated results For a detailed comparison of the results, we consider the six sensor arcs placed in a semi-circular pattern at distance of and from the source. In Fig. 5.4 we see that there is good agreement between the computed and experimental results for the integrated dose across each of the six arcs. We present a quantitative comparison of measured and predicted values in terms of the statistical performance measures in Table 5.1. These quantities conrm the good agreement with the experimental data that we observed in the gures above.
27 of 53
TI21 Dose
100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 100 110 120 130 140 140 140 150 150 150
Monitor
TI21 Arrival time

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 100 110 120 120 130 130
Monitor
TI21 Departure Time

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 100 110
Monitor
Figure 5.3: Comparison of simulated and experimental quantities for all sensors of the Thorney Island Test 21.
28 of 53
r=75m
r=100m
TI21 sensor arc #1

300 Experiment Prediction 300
TI21 sensor arc #4
Dose (%*s)
Dose (%*s)
200
200
z=0.4m
100
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sensor #
Sensor #
TI21 sensor arc #2

300
300
TI21 sensor arc #5
Dose (%*s)
200
Dose (%*s)
200
z=2.4m
100
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sensor #
Sensor #
TI21 sensor arc #3

300 300
TI21 sensor arc #6
Dose (%*s)
200
Dose (%*s)
200
z=4.4m
100
100
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sensor #
Sensor #
Figure 5.4: Comparison of simulated and experimental values for the integrated dose across six sensor arcs in the Thorney Island Test 21.
29 of 53
6. EMU CHLORINE RELEASE EXPERIMENT

The EMU Dense Jet (EMUDJ) experiment consisted of a steady jet release of Chlorine ( ) at an industrial compound located in Amlwch, Wales. The experimental site is characterized by a hilly topography, with the sea to the north and hills of up to approx. 30m height.

We show a schematic layout of the experiment in Fig. 6.1. The experiment was performed with a mixture of 10% (by volume) that was released at a rate of through a nozzle with diameter 1.74m. During the experiment the wind came from the direction of the sea (north). The average wind speed during the experiment was . The release duration was 900s, and gas concentrations were recorded in a total of 125 sensors located at several heights at six different distances downwind of the release point.
6.2 Grid
Because of limited computational resources we restricted the simulation domain to cover the source region. The grid comprised approximately 250000 cells. To align the grid with the buildings, we rotated the domain (i.e. geometry & topography) by an angle of 32 degrees in the positive direction. The extent of the simulation domain is m in the ,and -directions, respectively. In a m close to the release, the grid size is 2m in all directions. Outside of this region, the grid has been stretched towards the boundaries. The stretching factor is less than in all directions.
6.3 Gas composition

The molecular weight of chlorine is . Chlorine is not one of the standard gases in FLACS, and for this simulation we prepared a special version of the code that includes the gas properties of chlorine. The molecular weight of the chlorine/air mixture is . We also performed an additional simulation in which the released gas was modeled by a mixture of 78.786% ethane and 21.214% propane. The results of the two simulations agree both qualitatively and quantitatively. The reported results are from the simulation of the Chlorine/Air mixture.
30 of 53
Figure 6.1: EMU Dense Jet experiment. Overview of the experimental site and the release.
31 of 53
Table 6.1: EMU Dense Jet experiment. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values. Parameter MRB MRSE ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 0 0 1 1 Mean
6.4 Results
We show a horizontal two-dimensional eld plot of the gas concentration in the plane of the release in Fig. 6.2. We note that the jet is deected somewhat by the buildings in the near-eld as it is swept downwind. Time histories of the mass fraction of the released gas were recorded for all the sensor locations that fall within the restricted simulation domain. The sensors located at m and m were thus discarded. Volume fractions were extracted from the recorded mass fraction to compute the mean concentrations for all the sensor locations. The average was performed over a period of 700s such that the initial build-up of the jet was not taken into account for the calculation of the mean values. In Fig. 6.3 we compare the mean concentration for all the sensor locations. Note that there is a relatively large scatter in the predictedto-observed ratios, but that under- and over-predictions seem to be evenly distributed. This impression is conrmed by the statistical parameters given in Table 6.1 where we note that both the Mean Relative Bias and the Geometric Mean Bias are fairly small, while the large scatter is reected in the Mean Relative Square Error and the Geometric Mean Bias parameters that express the variance in the comparison.
32 of 53
Y (m) 5900 5850 5800 5750 5700 5650 5600 5550 5500 5450 5400 5350 5300 5250 5200 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 X (m) 2400
Figure 6.2: EMU Dense Jet experiment. Mass concentration of Chlorine in the release to . plane. The scale is logarithmic and the range is from
33 of 53
EMU DJ mean C
1000 100
SIM/EXP
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 0 5
Sensor
Figure 6.3: EMU Dense Jet experiment. Comparison of simulated and experimental results of averaged concentration values.
34 of 53
35 of 53

Test 17 of the BA-Propane experiments consisted of a continuous jet release of liquid propane. The jet was obstructed by a 2m high arc-shaped fence downstream of the release point. The obstacle was removed in the middle of the experiment such that two data sets were generated. It is thus possible to compare the dispersion with and without the obstacle. The two data sets are denoted by EEC170 and EEC171 for the non-obstructed and obstructed case respectively.

Liquid propane was released through nozzle to form a liquid jet. The propane was released at a rate of . The duration of the release was , the average wind speed during the test was , and the wind direction coincided with the release direction. The fence was located from the source, and spans a circular arc of approximately with one end point approximately at the jet axis such that more or less half of the jet was obstructed. Fig. 7.1 shows a plan of the experimental site with the fence and the sensor locations.

To facilitate grid renement by stretching towards the jet axis, the coordinate system was rotated to align the jet and wind direction in the -direction. The computational domain covers an area of in the horizontal plane and a height of , and is covered by a grid comprising cells. Fig. 7.2 shows the horizontal grid, and the layout of the obstacle and the monitor points in the source region. The vertical grid is uniform close to the ground to resolve the height of the fence with ve control volumes. Above the height of the fence the grid is stretched towards the top of the domain. The obstacle is modeled in CASD, the circular arc is represented as a difference of two cylinders, and then differences with two boxes are used to cut off the correct sector.
7.3 Source denition


36 of 53
100
80
60
40
20
0 -100
-80
-60
-40
-20
Figure 7.1: Plan of the release point and direction, fence, and sensor locations for the EEC171 test.
by volume
Air has been entrained into the jet during the evaporation, and the propane in the jet has therefore been diluted.
7.4 Results
We show contour plots of the steady-state concentration eld at ground level for the non-obstructed and obstructed case in Fig. 7.3 and Fig. 7.4, respectively. Note in particular that very little gas is trapped behind the fence. The jet is deected a little by the fence, but the distribution is nevertheless quite similar. Time histories of the mass fraction of the released gas were recorded for all the sensor locations. Volume fractions were extracted from the recorded mass fraction to compute the
37 of 53
Y (m)
100
80
60
40
20
-0 -60 Job=020100. Time= 100.008 (s). IJ plane, K=1 -40 -20 0 20 40
X (m)
Y (m)
100
M9 M34 M32 80 M7 M27 M28 60 M22 M5 M21 M16 M2 M13
M8 M31 M6 M25
M29
M23 M40 M4 M19
M17
M3 M15 M35 M1 M11
40
20
-0 -60 Job=020100. Time= 100.008 (s). IJ plane, K=1 -40 -20 0 20 40
X (m)
Figure 7.2: Computational grid and obstacle layout for the simulation of tests EEC170 and EEC171.
38 of 53
Y (m) 100
90 M9 M34 M32 80 M7 M27 M28 60 M5 M21 50 M22 M16 M3 M15 40 M2 M13 M35 M1 M11 M4 M19 M17 M6 M25 M23 M40 M8 M31 M29
70
30
20
10
-0
X (m) -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 7.3: Field plot of propane mass concentrations in the control volume next to the ground for the simulation of case EEC170. The scale is logarithmic and the range to is from .
39 of 53
Y (m) 110
100
90 M9 M34 M32 80 M6 M25 M23 M28 60 M5 M21 50 M22 M16 M3 M15 40 M2 M13 M35 30 M1 M11 M4 M19 M17 M40 M8 M31 M29
70
M7 M27
20
10
-0 X (m) -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 7.4: Field plot of propane mass concentrations in the control volume next to the ground for the simulation of case EEC171. The scale is logarithmic and the range to is from .
40 of 53
EEC 170 Mean_C

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35
Monitor
Figure 7.5: Comparison of simulated and measured mean concentrations for the EEC170 liquid propane release experiment.
mean concentrations for all the sensor locations. The average was performed over a period of 60s during steady state conditions, such that the initial build-up of the jet was not taken into account for the calculation of the mean values. We show the point-wise comparison of simulated and experimental values in Fig. 7.5 and Fig. 7.6. For the un-obstructed case we see that there is very good correspondence between the measurements and the simulated values. While this is not enough for a full validation, it is nevertheless a strong indication that the FLASH model gives reasonable results within its range of applicability. For the obstructed case, there is larger scatter in the results. The severe underpredictions we see in some locations are either from sensors that were located leewards of the fence, or for sensors that lie on the edge of the cloud in regions where the grid stretching has reduced the accuracy of the computed results. Note that in the experiment, several sensor locations were equipped with two sensors as an internal consistency check. The data set has not been corrected for this. As a consequence, we can observe that there is a kind of periodicity in Fig. 7.6. For example will the under-predictions seen in the sensor pair (4,19) represent the same measurement. The same applies to the sensor pairs (5,21) and (9,34). We present a quantitative comparison of measured and predicted values in terms of the statistical performance measures in Table 7.1.
41 of 53
EEC171 Mean_C
100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25 27.5 30 32.5 35
Monitor
Figure 7.6: Comparison of simulated and measured mean concentrations for the EEC171 liquid propane release experiment.
Table 7.1: EEC Test 17. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values of mean concentration. Parameter MRB MRSE ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 0 0 1 1 EEC170
EEC171
42 of 53
43 of 53

Test 56 of the BA-Propane experiments consisted of a continuous jet release of liquid propane. The jet was obstructed by a 2m high linear semi-permeable fence with 50% blockage downstream of the release point. The obstacle was removed in the middle of the experiment such that two data sets were generated. It is thus possible to compare the dispersion with and without the obstacle. The two data sets are denoted by EEC560 and EEC561 for the non-obstructed and obstructed case respectively.

Liquid propane was released through nozzle to form a liquid jet. The propane was released at a rate of . The duration of the release was , the average wind speed during the test was , and the wind direction made an angle with the release direction. The fence was located from the source, and spans a circular arc of approximately with one end point approximately at the jet axis such that more or less half of the jet was obstructed. Fig. 8.1 shows a plan of the experimental site with the fence and the sensor locations.

To facilitate grid renement by stretching towards the jet axis, the coordinate system was rotated to align the jet and wind direction in the -direction. The computational domain covers an area of in the horizontal plane and a height of , and is covered by a grid comprising cells. Fig. 8.2 shows the horizontal grid, and the layout of the obstacle and the monitor points in the source region. The vertical grid is uniform close to the ground to resolve the height of the fence with ve control volumes. Above the height of the fence the grid is stretched towards the top of the domain.
8.3 Source denition


44 of 53
100
80
60
40
20
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 8.1: Plan of the release point and direction, fence, and sensor locations for the EEC561 test. The release is located in the origin of the gure, the two other arrows indicate the wind direction during the experiment.
45 of 53
Y (m) 100
80
60
40
20
-0
X (m) -80 Job=020100. Time= 210.009 (s). IJ plane, K=1 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Y (m) 100
M9 80 M6 M7 M38 M8 60 M2 M3 40 M1 M4 M5 M16 M18 M19 M10
M17
M13 M14 M15 M33 M11 M12
20
-0
X (m) -80 Job=020100. Time= 210.009 (s). IJ plane, K=1 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 8.2: Grid, monitor, and obstacle layout for the simulation of the EEC560 and EEC561 tests.
46 of 53
Y (m) 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -0
X (m) -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
by volume
Air has been entrained into the jet during the evaporation, and the propane in the jet has therefore been diluted.
8.4 Results
We show contour plots of the steady-state concentration eld at ground level for the non-obstructed and obstructed case in Fig. 8.3 and Fig. 8.4, respectively. See that the jet is deected by the fence and the width of the jet increases signicantly in the obstructed case. Time histories of the mass fraction of the released gas were recorded for all the
47 of 53
Y (m) 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 -0 X (m) -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
48 of 53
EEC560, Mean conc.

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 0 5 10 15 20 25
Monitor
Figure 8.5: Comparison of simulated and experimental mean concentration for all sensors of the EEC560 test. sensor locations. Volume fractions were extracted from the recorded mass fraction to compute the mean concentrations for all the sensor locations. The average was performed over a period of 60s during steady state conditions, such that the initial build-up of the jet was not taken into account for the calculation of the mean values. We show the point-wise comparison of simulated and experimental values in Fig. 7.5 and Fig. 7.6. In both cases there is generally good correspondence between the measurements and the simulated values. In particular for the sensors located at ground level (sensors no. 119) there is good agreement between the experimental and simulated values. For the sensors above ground level (2025) are the differences larger. The two sensors that are under-predicted by a factor 10 in the obstructed case (12) are located at the edge of the cloud. We present a quantitative comparison of measured and predicted values in terms of the statistical performance measures in Table 8.1.
49 of 53
EEC561, Mean conc.

100
10
SIM/EXP
0.1
0.01 0 5 10 15 20 25
Monitor
Table 8.1: EEC Test 56. Statistical performance measures for the comparison of predicted and measured values of mean concentration. Parameter MRB MRSE ln(MG) ln(VG) Fa2 Fa5 Ideal value 0 0 0 0 1 1 EEC170
EEC171
50 of 53
51 of 53
9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the simulations performed for the SMEDIS project are condensed into Fig. 9.1 in which we plot the Geometric Mean (MG) against the Geometric Mean Variance (VG). We have also plotted the validation parabola and the factor-of-2 limits. The results of the BA-Propane tests show that the ashing model within its area of applicability gives a good representation of the source during ashing release, and that FLACS handles the subsequent dispersion well. In these cases we predicted much larger over- and under-predictions including zero predictions for sensors located above the ground that for those at ground level. The MG and VG measures are singular for zero concentrations, and the computed values of MG and VG is very sensitive to the choice of threshold values. Looking at the background data shown in Figures 3.5, 3.6, 7.5, 7.6, 8.5, and 8.6 we notice that the overall performance of the predictions seems to be better than Fig. 9.1 indicates. This is also conrmed by the more robust MRB and MRSE parameters. It is possible that the model does not take properly into account heating of the cold gas cloud by the ground and that this can explain the low predicted concentrations above ground level. We will be investigated further. We also noted some discrepancies close to the fences. The results of the predictions of the instantaneous release experiments TI21 and DAT638 are generally good and conrms the limited results that were obtained for the TI21 case earlier [2]. The predictions of the EMUDJ experiments also show that FLACS is capable of simulating more realistic scenarios like release in a complex industrial site with non-trivial topography quite well. The results of the simulations performed during the SMEDIS project increase the condence in FLACS to predict dense gas release and dispersion scenarios. The present results are not sufcient for a full validation of the model with estimates of the uncertainties of the computed predictions. The good performance across the board of test cases show however that FLACS can be applied to obtain reliable predictions of dense gas dispersion.
52 of 53
1000 Geometric Mean Variance (VG)
EEC550 EEC551 DAT638 EMUDJ TI21 EEC170 EEC171 EEC560 EEC561
100
10
1 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 2 4 8 Geometric Mean Bias (MG)
Figure 9.1: Geometric Mean Bias and Geometric Mean Variance for all the test cases plotted in the validation parabola.
53 of 53
REFERENCES
[1] H.-C. Salvesen. Modeling of jet release of liqueed gas under high pressure. Technical Report CMR-95-F20062, Christian Michelsen Research as, Bergen, Norway, 1995. Condential. [2] H.-C. Salvesen and O. Asheim. Simulation of heavy gas dispersion with CFD code FLACS. Technical Report CMR-95-F20021, Christian Michelsen Research as, Bergen, Norway, 1995. Condential. [3] S.F. Jagger, B. Carissimo, and N. Daish. Denition of parameters for model runs, WP4. Report SMEDIS/96/14/D, SMEDIS Project, October 1998. Draft, Version 0.5. [4] M. E. Davies and S. Singh. The phase II trials: A data set on the effects of obstructions. J. Haz. Mater., 11:301323, 1985.

CMR 99 F30063 - Smedis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CMR 99 F30063 - Smedis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FLACS SIMULATIONS OF SMEDIS SCENARIOS

Client FLUG members

Author: Thor Gjesdal Hans-Christen Salvesen Benoit Buffet

Bergen, December 1999 Ref.nr.: CMR-99-F30063

Confidential Copy no.: .................

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

2. SMEDIS VALIDATION STRATEGY AND COMPARISON PARAMETERS 2.1 Validation strategy

2.2 Physical comparison parameters

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

) of the dose has

and, similarly, for the time of departure

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

was used in the SMEDIS project. The standard deviation is given by

and the th moment of

2.3 Statistical performance parameters

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Mean Relative Square Error (MRSE):

Geometric Mean Bias (MG):

Geometric Mean Variance (VG):

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

3. EEC550 AND EEC551 EXPERIMENTS

3.1 Experimental setup

3.2 Computational grid

3.3 Source denition

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

-30 X (m) -0 Job=491003. Time= 160.010 (s). IJ plane, K=1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

M10 M9 M34 M48

Job=491003. Time= 160.010 (s). IJ plane, K=1

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Job=490903. Var.=LOG10(FUEL (-)). Time= 150.007 (s). IJ plane, K=1

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Job=491003. Var.=LOG10(FUEL (-)). Time= 140.004 (s). IJ plane, K=1

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

EEC550, Mean conc.

EEC551, Mean conc.

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

Christian Michelsen Research AS

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

4.1 Experimental setup

4.2 Scaling and computational grid

FLACS simulations of SMEDIS scenarios

0 0 50 100 -50 150 Y (m) 0

Job=491100. Var.=FUEL (-). Time= 30.164 (s). I=6-80, J=1-34, K=1-15.

Figure 4.1: Simulated gas cloud at of released gas are shown.