Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2012

GT2012
June 11-15, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark

GT2012-69536

FLAMABILITY OF HIGH FLASH POINT LIQUID FUELS

Peter J Kay, Andrew P. Crayford, Philip J. James Luxford

Bowen RWE npower
GTRC, Institute of Energy Swindon, Wiltshire, SN5 6PB, United Kingdom
Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3TA, United
Kingdom

ABSTRACT Gas oil (flash point > 61 °C) ignited as a free jet at a
Current European Health and Safety Legislation was working pressure consistent with previous hypotheses.
implemented to limit the chance of a serious explosion However, when the jet impinged on a solid surface then the
occurring in the workplace by highlighting potentially resulting spray could be ignited at considerably lower delivery
explosive atmospheres and ensuring that ignition sources are pressures. Although the impingement process is complex, the
not present in these areas. Though hazardous area data will be discussed in light of contemporary models that
classification for gaseous and dust explosion hazards are well predict initial jet/spray characteristics along with post-
established, the same cannot be said for mists especially for impingement characteristics. This paper presents a first step
high flash point liquids. However, a recent literature review of towards consolidating previous studies and improving future
a range of (some fatal) incidents has shown that mist safety guidelines concerned with the risk posed by the
explosions are more common and the consequences more flammability of accidental releases of pressurised high
severe than previously anticipated. This work is, for example, flashpoint fuels.
applicable to the safe use of fuels and lubricants utilised in the
gas turbine power generation and propulsion industries. NOMENCLATURE
Previous studies of jet breakup regimes and idealised Symbol
flammability studies have indicated that low pressure releases Bst Spalding Transfer Number
(<10 bar) of low volatility fuels may still give rise to cp Specific Heat Capacity
combustion hazards. Impingement of accidental releases onto D Droplet Diameter
surfaces has been shown to exacerbate the potential hazard, or d Nozzle Diameter
broaden the range of hazardous release conditions. However, L Length of Nozzle
although a theoretical case can be made for generating La Laplace Number
flammable environments under moderate release conditions, Re Reynolds Number
very little evidence has been provided to bridge the gap Tst Flame Temperature
between ‘idealised’ studies and full-scale incidents. The aim of We Weber Number
this first programme of work is to start the process of bridging μ Viscosity
this gap, leading to well founded safety guidance. ρ Density
The test programme was conducted in a custom built σ Surface Tension
spray chamber located in the Gas Turbine Research Centre φ Equivalence Ratio
(GTRC) of Cardiff University. The fuel was released at a pre- Subscript
defined range of pressures of industrial relevance at a Air
atmospheric temperature. Igniters were positioned at three d Droplet
downstream locations and the continuous electrical discharge f Fuel
had an energy no greater than 4 mJ. Tests were conducted for l Liquid
‘free sprays’ where the spray was directed along the length of min Minimum
the chamber, and for impinging sprays where the spray was o Orifice
aligned to impinge normal to a flat un-heated surface. st Stoichiometric

1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Water,stp Water at Standard Temperature and Pressure
Acronyms
ASR Atmospheric Spray Rig
LFL Lower Flammability Limit
MIE Minimum Ignition Energy
SMD Sauter Mean Diameter
SWP Safe Working Pressure
UFL Upper Flammability Limit
INTRODUCTION
The European ATEX directives (99/92/EC and 94/9/EC) which
are implemented in the UK under the Dangerous Substances
and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) 2002 and
the Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in
Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 1996 (EPS
Regulations) require employers to classify into zones areas
where explosion hazards may occur and utilise suitably
designed equipment within these zones accordingly limit the
chance of an accidental ignition. Though hazardous area
classification for gases and dust explosion hazards are well
established (Eckhoff, 2006), the same cannot be said for mists
especially for high flash point liquids, as first highlighted by
Bowen and Shirvill (Bowen et al., 1994).
Very little progress has been made since this first
notification (Bowen, 2011), though a recent literature review
(Santon, 2009) of a range of incidents has shown that mist
explosions are more common and the consequences more
severe than previously anticipated. The study identified 37
incidents including 20 explosions, of which nine were
collectively responsible for a total of 29 fatalities.
For flammable gas hazards, the classification of hazardous
areas into zones is based on an assessment of the frequency of
the occurrence and duration of the explosive atmosphere, as
follows:
• Zone 0: An area in which an explosive gas
atmosphere is present continuously or for long
periods.
• Zone 1: An area in which an explosive gas
atmosphere is likely to occur in normal operation.
• Zone 2: An area in which an explosive gas
atmosphere is not likely to occur in normal operation
and, if it occurs, will only exist for a short time.
A similar system is applied to dust explosion hazards.
Guidance on the classification of areas is provided in BS EN
60079-10 (BSI, 2009) for application to gases, vapours and
liquids that are handled above their flashpoint, that could
potentially give rise to an explosive atmosphere. However, this
standard does not cover mists.
Adhering to the guidelines and mitigating a mist
explosion risk thorough the use of appropriately rated
enclosures and safety systems can be costly. Therefore
understanding the parameters that affect the likelihood of an
2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
explosive mist atmosphere is important and can have a
quantifiable impact.
There is a significant amount of literature published
examining the MIE of mists, atomization of liquid jets and
jet/spray impingement phenomena. For example the MIE for
various fuels has been studied in great detail under controlled
conditions (Bane et al, 2011; Shepard et al, 1990). Much
literature has been published on the atomisation of sprays and
their related phenomena (Lefebvre, 1989). Also there are well
established models related to the impingement of drops and
sprays on surfaces (Bai, et al, 2002; Mundo, et al, 1998).
This paper aims to begin to address the issues raised
by the lack of guidance in the regulations – particularly for
high flashpoint, involatile fuels - by developing knowledge of
spray/mist ignition for practical applications through an
experimental programme based on initial conditions pertinent
to industry. The results generated are the complex combination
of the mechanisms governing spray formation, spray
impingement and spray ignition. However, the results observed
will be analysed and discussed in light of models published.
Potentially flammable mists can be formed in a number of
ways – firstly mists can be created due to atomisation of liquid
jets. The simplest example is the break-up of a liquid jet from a
plain orifice. A jet is formed as the pressurised fluid is forced
though the exit orifice, the jet is ejected with a velocity
proportional to the upstream pressure. Small instabilities in the
jet form and grow until, at some distance downstream, the jet
breaks up forming a spray and if confined – a mist.
Alternatively the jet, or spray, may impinge on a solid surface
and due to the fluid dynamics splash on the surface undergoing
further atomisation creating a finer mist (Maragkos et al,
2002).
EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES
The experiments were conducted in the Atmospheric Spray Rig
(ASR) located at the Gas Turbine Research Centre (GTRC)
part of Cardiff University located in Port Talbot. The ASR is
2.2 x 1.2 x 0.7 m and has the release orifice located at the
upstream end and a natural draft extraction at the other. Three
NGK spark plugs, which are earthed via the rig, are located
0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m downstream from the orifice respectively; as
shown in Figure 1. Each igniter had a spark gap no greater
than 3.8 mm and was connected to a Satronic ZT 870 ignition
spark generator. The ignition spark generators are capable of
producing a continuous spark (50 Hz) with a voltage of 16 kV
and spark energies of 4 mJ.
 (a)

Figure 1: Schematic representation of fuel delivery system.

The fuel was presurised in an accumulator with Nitrogen
affording a delivery pressure of up to 30 bar to be delivered at
the nozzle. A pneumatic valve just upstream of the final orifice
controls the timing and duration the release. The igniters and
final valve are controlled remotely. High definition videos of
the release events were simply recorded using a Cannon D60
SLR camera. The release orifice used throughout the
experimental program had a diameter of 1 mm and an aspect
ratio of unity.
The igniters were initiated prior to the fuel being released, (b)
and the fuel was sprayed until ignition was observed or a Figure 2: Video still of ignition of free spray at 2.5 SWP. (a)
maximum of 10 seconds, whichever came first. For the Pre-ignition and (b) Post-ignition
impingement tests the setup remained nominally identical with It is interesting to note that the spray was ignited by
the only modification being made to the location and igniter 3 which corresponds the location farthest downstream.
orientation of the nozzle. For the impingement studies the For comparison Figure 3 shows a video still of the free spray at
nozzle was located 60 mm from the impingement surface at a the SWP, which did not ignite during the 10 second delivery
perpendicular distance of 100 mm from the first igniter, the schedule.
fuel was sprayed vertically downwards normal to the flat
impingement surface.
The fuel used throughout all the tests was Gas-oil with a
quoted flash point of > 61 °C, which was released at
atmospheric temperature.

RESULTS
Due to the confidential nature of the research programme
the delivery pressures utilised for this study cannot be detailed
at this time consequently the results presented are non-
dimensionalised against a Safe Working Pressure (SWP). The
SWP is defined as the pressure at which there were no
recorded ignition events during the free spray experiments. Figure 3: Video still of ignition of free spray at 1.0 SWP
For the free spray experiments the release pressure was set Figure 4 presents two video stills showing pre and
at an initially high value and repeat experiments conducted at post-ignition of the impinging spray at 1.0 SWP. It is
decreasing delivery pressures until no ignition was observed interesting to note that the spray was ignited at Igniter 1
during the three repeated experiments. Figure 2 presents two corresponding to the closest downstream location (60mm)
video stills showing pre and post-ignition of the free spray at which is in contrast to the 1500 mm distance observed for
2.5 SWP. ignition of the free spray.

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 smaller droplets have a larger surface area to volume ratio
compared with larger drops for the same mass. This promotes
drop evaporation which in turn increases combustion
efficiency, which in turn can increase heat release rate and
over pressure significantly affecting the severity of the
incident. Figure 5 shows the number-under-size and mass
under size plots for the free sprays for the range of SWP’s
investigated. The mass-under-size plots were predicted from a
previously developed model by Kay et al, the data and
validation are discussed elsewhere (Kay et al, 2010). However
the correlation for predicting the mean spray diameter is
reproduced in Equation (1).
0.97
(a) 𝐷𝑆𝑀𝐷 −0.85 0.44
𝐿 0.114 𝜇𝑙,𝑜 (1)
= 74𝑊𝑒𝑙,𝑜 𝑅𝑒𝑙,𝑜 � � � �
𝑑𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝜇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑠𝑡𝑝
−0.37 −0.11
𝜎𝑙,𝑜 𝜌𝑙,𝑜
.� � � �
𝜎𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑠𝑡𝑝 𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟,𝑠𝑡𝑝

Figure 5 highlights the difference between

considering sprays by number or by mass. For example,
approximately 10 % of the mass is contained in droplets with a
diameter less than 400 microns for the 2.5 SWP case –
whereas 90 % of the droplets by number are contained within
this size range. This is simply because mass is proportional to
the diameter cubed, therefore if the diameter of a droplet is
(b) doubled then it will have 8 times the volume – effectively
Figure 4: Video still of ignition of impinging spray at 1.0 meaning that a significant proportion of the mass is contained
SWP. (a) Pre-ignition and (b) Post-ignition within a relatively few number of large droplets. In the context
of flammable risk hazards larger droplets not only reduce the
Table 1 presents a summary of the experimental results. evaporation rate but are less likely to be present in the spark
Table 1: Summary of test results gap at the time of a spark as, depending on the downstream
Test Number Pressure [SWP] Setup Ignition? location of the ignition source, the droplets are more likely to
1 2.5 Free Spray Yes have rained out.
2 2.0 Free Spray Yes
3 1.5 Free Spray Yes
4 1.0 Free Spray No
5 1.0 Impingement Yes
6 0.5 Impingement Yes

DISCUSSION
The first observation is that ignition occurred for releases
where the temperature of the fuel is below the flashpoint,
highlighting the fact that flashpoint cannot be used as a
measure for risk assessment relating to mist explosions.
The interesting observation from Table 1, is that
impingement of the spray results in an ignitable mixture at
delivery pressures half that of pressures previously considered
safe. There are still practical applications where fuel is
transported at this pressure, and consequently still a risk. The
thermo-fluid dynamics associated with this observation will be
analysed and discussed highlighting reasons for the differences Figure 5: Mass-under-size and number-under-size plots for
in ignitability. various SWP.
The size distribution in a spray has a significant The minimum ignition energy (MIE) required to
influence on its combustion characteristics. For example, ignite a droplet has been studied and quantified previously

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 (Ballal and Lefebvre, 1978) and is proportional to its diameter
(cubed). The model to predict the MIE for quiescent mists,
which was derived and subsequently validated experimentally
is given in Equation (2). This model relies on a number of
parameters including droplet diameter, equivalence ratio, gas
and liquid properties and evaporation constants.
1 𝜋𝑐𝑝,𝑎 ∆𝑇𝑠𝑡 𝐷3 𝜌𝑓 3/2 (2)
𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑛 = � � . � �
6 𝜌𝑎
1/2 𝜑𝑙𝑛(1 + 𝐵𝑠𝑡 )
The formula presented in Equation (2) is based on the
theory of the quenching distance between droplets in a
homogeneous quiescent mist. The MIE is then proposed as the
energy required to raise the temperature a sphere of air, with a
diameter equal to the quenching distance, from ambient to the
stoichiometric adiabatic flame temperature.
In this study the MIE model of Ballal and Lefebvre
has been combined with the droplet size model of Kay et al for Figure 7: Mass-under-size and number-under-size with MIE
2.5 SWP and 1.0 SWP and is presented in Figure 6 and Figure for 1.0 SWP.
7 respectively. These refer to the experimental data observed in It is now possible to get an idea of how the
Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively. The MIE for the upper distribution of droplet sizes within the spray will affect its
flammability limit (UFL), stoichiometic and lower flammability. For example, Figure 6 shows that with an
flammability limit (LFL) conditions have been superimposed. ignition energy capped at 4 mJ, the largest droplet diameters
The scale for the secondary y-axis presenting the MIE has been for a flammable mist (based on Ballal and Lefebvre’s model) is
capped at 4 mJ, which is the anticipated spark energy utilised 63 microns - for stoichiometric mixtures. This can be related to
in this study (as stated in the spark generator datasheet). the number and mass under-size plots, as <0.1 % by-mass and
62 % by-number of the spray are below this theoretical
maximum diameter.
It was not possible to measure the true equivalence
ratio at the igniter prior to combustion and so results will be
discussed in a comparative sense. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show
that as the SWP is decreased from 2.5 to 1.0 then the
proportion of mass and number of droplets that could
theoretically be ignited decreases. This information is
presented in
Table 2 presents the maximum droplet diameter that
can be ignited by a 4 mJ spark and consequently the
percentage mass and number of droplets with a diameter below
this limit can be considered flammable.
Table 2: Summary of Ignition Spray Data
Condition UFL Stoich LFL
Diameter limit for a 4 mJ spark [µm] 48 63 177
Figure 6: Mass-under-size and number-under-size with MIE Mass-under-size for 2.5 SWP [%] <0.1 <0.1 1.6
for 2.5 SWP. Number-under-size for 2.5 SWP [%] 58 62 84
Mass-under-size for 1.0 SWP [%] <0.1 <0.1 <0.5
Number-under-size for 1.0 SWP [%] 38 48 74
The flammable percentage of the spray required for the spray
to combust is not easy to define, and further investigation
would be required to assess the affect of droplet size and
concentration on the MIE. Again the guidance in current
legislation is poor, for example in BS EN 60079-10-1 (BSI,
2009) it states that the flammable aerosol component of a spray
release may involve as little as 1% of the total mass released.
It is noted that, at the conditions tested, the pressure
at which the free spray did not ignite is fixed at 1.0 SWP. This

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 suggests that the atomisation at this delivery pressure is
insufficient to provide small enough droplets at a high enough
droplet loading and consequently the percentage of droplets
within the flammable range was too low.
As discussed earlier; impingement exacerbated the
potential hazard. This is due to the re-atomisation of splashing
droplets, which reduces the mean droplet diameter whilst
increasing the droplet loading of the spray. Much effort has
been employed in understanding the impingement of single
and multiple droplet impacts on solid surfaces and developing
models that predict the post-impingement droplet
characteristics. Due to the two-phase thermofluid complexity
of the impingement process, previous analysis has resorted to
the development of non-dimensionalised correlations. A few of
these impingement models are employed in some of the more
widely used commercial CFD software. One of the most
commonly used correlations is the one proposed by Bai et al Figure 8: Mass-under-size and number-under-size for pre and
post-impingement sprays for 1.0 SWP.
and is discussed in detail elsewhere (Bai et al, 2002), but will
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the post-impingement number
be described in brief here. The model, based on the impacting
and mass-under-size plots for 1.0 and 0.5 SWP. The LFL,
droplet Weber and Laplace number, first predicts whether the
stoichiometric and UFL have been superimposed as discussed
droplet will stick, spread, bounce or splash on the surface. The
earlier. Unlike the free spray data, presented in Figure 6 and
regime transition criteria are presented in Table 3 with the post
Figure 7, almost the entire spray is theoretically ignitable on a
impingement droplet characteristics based on separate
mass and number basis. These plots are a clear indication of
correlations depending on which regime the droplets are in.
how a hazard can be exacerbated due to impingement of a free
Table 3: Regime transition criteria (Bai et al, 2002)
spray.
Regime Transition Criteria
Stick Wed ≤ 2630.La −0.18 ( DRY ) ; Wed ≤ 2 (WET )
Rebound 2 < Wed ≤ 20 (WET )
Spread 20 < Wed ≤ 1320.La −0.18 (WET )
Wed > 2630.La −0.18 ( DRY )
Splash
Wed > 1320.La −0.18 (WET )
Based on the Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) of the free spray,
the post impingement droplet characteristics were predicted
using the correlation of Bai et al. Figure 8 shows the mass and
number-under-size plots for both the pre and post-
impingement sprays. Figure 8 shows that the proportion of
mass contained within droplets with a diameter less than 200
microns has changed from less than 0.1 % for the pre-
impingement spray to greater than 90 % of the post- Figure 9: Mass-under-size and number-under-size with MIE
impingement spray. Significant changes are also observed for for 1.0 SWP.
the number-under-size plots.

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 • Impingent models from the literature demonstrated
how the droplet size distribution of the free spray is
significantly altered post-impingement, again in
qualitative agreement with current experimental
observations.

Whilst the contribution of this paper is generally

qualitative in nature, it provides a notable practical step
forward in developing understanding of this poorly studied
problem towards quantitative practical industrial
guidelines and standards. This is the focus of an ongoing
joint industry project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank RWE for funding the
study and the efforts of Mr Steven Morris and Mr Terry
Figure 10: Mass-under-size and number-under-size with MIE
Treherne at the GTRC in helping conduct the experiments.
for 0.5 SWP.
Although outside of the scope of this study it worth
REFERENCES
considering the following. Solid surfaces in close proximity to
Bai, C.X., Rusche, H., Gosman, A.D., Modeling of
a potential release source may also, depending upon their size,
Gasoline Spray Impingement. Atomization and Sprays, 2002.
shape and number, result in confinement of the atomised spray
12: p. 1-27.
and acceleration of the resulting flame, therefore increasing
Ballal, D. R. & Lefebvre, A. H. (1978) Ignition and
not only the probability of ignition but also the consequences
flame quenching of quiescent fuel mists. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.,
of that event. The practical implication of this is that the
A364, p277-294.
environment surrounding such systems may have to be given
Bane, S.P.M., Ziegler, J.L, Boettcher, P.A, Coronel,
more detailed consideration in the risk assessment than has
S.A and Shepherd, J.E. (2011) Experimental investigation of
previously been thought necessary.
spark ignition energy in kerosene, hexane, and hydrogen.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Article in
CONCLUSIONS
press.
This paper presents a study of hazards associated with
Bowen, P.J. and Shirvill, L.C. (1994). Combustion
high-flash point fuels and how the severity of the hazards can
hazards posed by the pressurized atomization of high-
be increased with spray impingement. The main conclusions
flashpoint liquids. Journal of Loss Prevention in Process
are:
Industries. V7 n3, pp 233-241.
• Unobstructed, ‘low-pressure’ liquid fuel releases
Bowen, P.J. (2011) Combustion Hazards Posed by
through plain orifices have been shown to ignite.
Hybrid Fuel Systems, Keynote Address at 5th European
• Sprays were ignited at temperatures significantly
Combustion Meeting, Scientific Programme, pg. 2, Cardiff
(circa 40K) below the flashpoint of the fuel.
28th June – 1st July 2011.
• A safe working pressure was determined
BSI (2009) Explosive atmospheres - Part 10-1:
experimentally for free spray conditions of a high-
Classification of areas - Explosive gas atmospheres. BS EN
flash point fuel.
60079-10-1:2009, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
• Sprays that impinged on a normal surface ignited at Eckhoff, R.K (2006) Differences and similarities of
0.5 the safe working pressure determined for the free gas and dust explosions: A critical evaluation of the European
jet releases highlighting a significant outstanding ‘ATEX’ directives in relation to dusts. Journal of Loss
issue concerning ‘area classification’ Prevention in the Process Industries, V19, pp 553-560.
• Current models in the literature have been used to EI (2005) Area classification code for installations
indicate the likelihood of flammable sprays, and handling flammable fluids. Part 15 of the IP model code of safe
emphasise the importance of both droplet size and practice in the petroleum industry, Energy Institute, London,
concentration on the MIE required. UK.
• Published models from the literature showed that at Kay, P.J., Bowen, P.J., Witlox, H.W.M. (2010) Sub-
the conditions tested the proportion of the spray cooled and flashing liquid jets and droplet dispersion II.
considered flammable at the SWP was shown to be Scaled experiments and derivation of droplet size correlations.
significantly less compared to a spray at 2.5 SWP,
consistent with our obseverations.

7 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Volume
23, Issue 6, Pages 849-856
Lefebvre, A.H. (1989) Atomization and Sprays,
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. ISBN 0-89116-603-3
Maragkos, A., Bowen, P.J., (2002) Combustion
hazards due to impingement of pressurised releases of high
flashpoint liquid fuels, The Proceedings of the Combustion
Institute, 29 305-311 ISSN 1540-7489
Mundo, C., Sommerfeld, M., and Tropea, C, On the
Modeling of Liquid Sprays Impinging on Surfaces. Atomization
and Sprays, 1998. 8: p. 625-652.
Santon, R.C. (2009) Mist fires and explosions - an
incident survey. Proc. IChemE Hazards XXI Symposium &
Workshop, Manchester, UK.
Shepherd, J. E., Lee, J. J., & Krok, J. C. (1999). Spark
ignition energy measurements in Jet A. GALCIT report FM97-
9. Graduate Aerospace Laboratories, California Institute of
Technology

8 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use