QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SAFETY IMPACT OF ISOLATION

AND BLOWDOWN SYSTEMS -
WEBINAR

1 How can we access the verification/validation information?

All validation material is provided in the Technical Reference documentation included with each
release.

2 How do I get Phast to display risk contours? Please note I use

Phast 7.11
Risk contours are only available in Safeti.

3 Is the ability to model safety systems only available on PHAST

8.1? I have PHAST 8.0 and when I attempted to perform the
scenarios you showed, I do not have the ability to select
blowdown
Yes, blowdown and isolation are only included in Phast 8.1 which was released on 4 May.

4 Does the time varying release model handle mixtures or is

there a multi-component version available?
It will handle mixtures, though using the standard "pseudo-component" modelling. The model itself
is capable of using more sophisticated multi-component modelling, but as yet this functionality is
not in Phast or Safeti.

5 What about modelling leak gas for some emergency process

scenarios in which Process Isolation is not always followed by
blowdown.
Isolation and blowdown can be switched on or off independently, so this should be possible.
6 What is the impact of the static inventory on the discharge
modeling? And how do you account for this inventory in case
of a two phase sparation vessel which is connected to
isolatable sections upstream and downstream?
When safety system modelling is enabled, then the user-specified inventory remains constant at its
initial value until the time of isolation failure/success. At the time of isolation success, all production
inflow/outflow is cut off and the inventory starts decreasing. In case of isolation failure, a user-
defined mass is added to the inventory to account for the fact that we have continued added mass
from the upstream vessel that failed to isolate.

7 How does this feature affect the running time of Safeti?

Safety systems will have overall a very small effect on the runtime

8 Would you see the same effect on fires? It does not calculate
a "dynamic" flame length reducing faster than without
blowdown? Only the jet fire total duration would be affected?
Jet fires will see an effect if the time over which they are averaged is such that the blowdown has a
significant effect on accidental release rate.

9 Does Phast 8.1 allow for dispersion modelling for upwind and
cross wind conditions?
No

10 How to handle two phase release in Phast.

I'm not entirely clear what aspects of 2-phase releases you mean here, but in general terms yes
Phast is able to model these - including rainout and re-evaporation of rained out liquid.

11 Are there engineering standards with blowdown

requirements?
The American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 521 includes recommendations for blowdown
requirements. These are not automatically built into Phast and Safeti, but it is possible for the user
to try out different blowdown valve sizes to find the appropriate size to satisfy a certain pressure
reduction requirement for a given time period.

12 Do you think it is better to not consider isolation and

blowdown when calculating risk?
It appears a fairly common approach to ignore the impact of isolation and blowdown, perhaps with
the justification that it's a "conservative" approach. What we aim to here is to provide the industry
with tools that allow safety engineers to assess the potential impact of isolation and blowdown. In
some cases, the impact on the risk may be small - but at least you have then made an actual
assessment about this, not just a "hand-waving" argument. In other cases, the impact could be
significant and would allow you to see the contribution to the risk reduction.
13 My understanding is that the blowdown may not have a
significant impact on the risk as this usually driven by the
initial rate, is this correct?
This will depend very much on the scenario, and it is difficult to give a definitive answer. Overall
blowdown will reduce risk but, in many cases, not by much. Where hazard ranges extend over
significant distances or times, blowdown can have a real impact.

14 How do I download v8.1?

You can download Phast 8.1 through the Customer Portal (link:
https://emea.salesforce.com/secur/login_portal.jsp?orgId=00D00000000hfQs&portalId=060200000
00QBJG&ec=302&startURL=%2Fa090J00001Ga1kX)

15 As per Blowdown technology courtesy of imperial collegue,

should the Cd coefficient for gas of 0.9 be used? Does Phast
assumption evolve in the same way?
Phast models the blowdown outflow in the same manner as it models an accidental gas leak outflow.
This means that a calculated value of the discharge coefficient is used, and for gases this is indeed
typically in the range 0.8 to 0.9. (Which differs from liquid releases, which has a Cd closer to 0.6).

16 In the Risk Reduction example chart I was surprised to see

that even with both Isolation and Blowdown implemented we
did not gain in risk reduction by even one order of magnitude!
The chart shown was for illustrative purposes showing the type of analysis possible - it does not
represent a real case study.

17 Is there any variation in final hazard distance if one adds

more points, i.e. more than 10?
For most cases 10 would be sufficient to characterize the release. Some releases - such as long
pipelines with closing valves, or releases where the liquid height drops below the hole have a more
complex form, that will be harder to capture. Currently, however, 10 is the maximum permitted. We
hope to remove this limitation in a future version.

18 I just want to know if any sensitivity is done to this showing

the impact of adding more points to determine the flow rate
and final impact on hazard distance.
Nothing is done automatically - it would be up to the analyst to try a different number of points
(again subject to the maximum of 10).

19 For plants having blowdown system, does 7.2 overestimate

consequences and effects that much, from 900m to 1500m?
 The results for this case are purely illustrative and should not be taken as a general indication of the
effect of blowdown on hazard distances. However, the larger the blowdown diameter relative to the
accidental release, the more significant the effects will become

20 Usually blowdown starts sometime after a leak, as time is

taken to detect and initiate blowdown. Can we enter this delay
time manually?
Yes, time to initiate blowdown and isolation are entered manually. This delay time can be set either
for each individual leak case or for all leak cases in your study through the Discharge Parameters.

21 Could we determine the release duration with isolation and

blowdown activated?
Yes you can. This result is available in the graphs and reports.

22 How is the impact?

This question is unfortunately not clear to us. Could you please send more details to
digital@dnvgl.com?

23 Can we also choose blowdown to safe location at a certain

height and see the combined dispersion effect from initial leak
location + blowdown at safe location into atmosphere? Or do
you always assume blowdown to flare system?
The blowdown is assumed to go to a 'safe' location and is not considered for dispersion and
downwind effects.

24 Will users of 8 be automatically upgraded to 8.1?

If users have a current SLA agreement, then they will be able to download 8.1 from the portal and
install alongside 8.0.

25 Can I see the flowrate through blowdown orifice as flowrate

vs. time graph?
Yes, blowdown flowrates are visible on the time-varying discharge graphs.

26 What about 2-phase/mixed phase release conditions both

time varying release rate calculations and subsequent
dispersion effects?
Time-varying releases of 2-phase material are handled by Phast.

27 Have you considered pressure reduction factor while

blowdown? Jet fire results will affect this.
 I am not quite sure what this question asks, but I’ve interpreted it as: “Is pressure reduction due to
blowdown taken into account? If yes, how does this affect jet fire results?" The pressure in the
vessel will reduce more quickly when the blowdown valve opens. The linked jet fire modelling makes
use of averaged discharge results over the first 20 seconds (a default value which can be varied as
needed), so the blowdown impact on the jet fire results will depend on when the blowdown valve
opens.

28 As per theory of QRA, isolation time is as per isolation system,

i.e. initial release rate will be the same until isolate the
system. But as per your modelling, this aspect is missing. Is it
so?
The assumption with the safety system modelling in Phast relating to isolation is that the initial
release rate will apply until isolation occurs – after which the release rate will vary with time
according to the rate of pressure decay within the system and the available inventory.

29 Is it based on the assumption that the blowdown is API

compliant?
The API standard sets criteria for the blowdown systems such as target reduction pressure (e.g.
50%) and time allowance (e.g. 15 minutes) and is focused largely on performance of the blowdown
system. The main focus of the blowdown model in Phast/Safeti is to assess the impacts of blowdown
on the consequences of a release.

30 Will it be a module, not default in the tool?

Blowdown is not the default option, but it is available in 8.1 to anyone with a standard Phast or
Safeti license.

31 What is the isolation time normally considered (2 min) and

then blowdown time considered after the release of chemical?
Both blowdown and isolation times are specified by the user per case. These times can also be set in
a study-wide manner through the Discharge Parameters.

32 What about flame impingement?

There is no modelling of flames impinging on process vessels (which would cause temperature rise
in the vessel).

33 What is the reason for having gaps between the time

segments?
In v7.x and earlier, gaps could open up between segments if for example one travelled faster than
another - e.g. high release rate segments generally travelled faster than low ones as they have
more momentum.
34 Can you model pool fire or jet fire to check blowdown
effectiveness?
The focus of safety systems modelling (isolation and blowdown) within Phast/Safeti is to assess the
impact of such systems on the consequence results/hazard ranges following a loss of containment
e.g. dispersion etc. As indicated above, the focus is on the “leak” and the material from the
blowdown system is assumed to go to a safe place. Modelling the effectiveness of an isolation or
blowdown system as a result of the system being impacted by a jet/pool fire scenario is not the
design intent of the model.

35 Is the time varying release helping us in natural gas pipelines

with isolation valve rooms?
Long pipelines have a separate model - also time-varying. These pipelines allow the specification of
multiple valves of different types.

36 What is the impact of partial phase equilibrium during

depressurization? As I can see Phast is using full
thermodynamic equilibrium, which is not actually correct
during rapid depressurization.
For multi-phase systems, the vapour is indeed likely to have a more rapid temperature decrease
than the liquid. In such situations the assumption of full thermal equilibrium is a simplification.
However, studies have shown that this simplification is likely to only have minor impact on the
pressure evolution and release rate. If you are interested in doing a detailed thermal analysis
relating to steel embrittlement, etc., then this simplification may not be appropriate. More detailed
heat transfer modelling is something we do consider for inclusion in the future (e.g. vessel subject
to external fire) but no concrete plans are in place for this.

37 You mentioned that Phast considers the first 20s for jet fire
modelling. Is there a way to specify a longer duration to
identify the impact on say a firewall, so that we can
demonstrate the advantage of having blowdown?
Yes - 20 secs are the default but the average time for jets can be increased by users (it is a
parameter).

38 For a segment with large inventory and assuming the

blowdown requires 15 minutes, then would blowdown make a
difference to the consequence distance between having
blowdown being modelled and no blowdown modelled?
It may do, but probably not for consequence distances based on maximum concentration and in the
near-field.
39 For the long pipeline case is it possible to do it by estimating
the total mass and flow rate and use them in the pressure
vessel model with the time varying release?
Small holes from a long pipeline may be estimated by using the time-varying leak model. However,
larger holes and full-bore ruptures in a long pipeline have very different flow dynamics and it would
not be appropriate to use a vessel leak model in such cases.

40 If your isolatable section is made up of multiple streams with

different composition, phase, pressure, temperature, etc. then
how do you choose which input to use in model?
This is difficult, and really must be left to the analyst to choose a representative composition.

41 Are jet fire results not time-dependent? Sounds as though

they are based on average flow rate during first 20 seconds
only?
They are based usually on the average over the first 20 seconds, but this can be increased by the
user by changing a parameter. Alternatively, jet fires can be averaged between two specified times,
or at a specific time.

42 How does runtime compare from steady-state release to new

time-varying release? Does adding blowdown increase
calculation time?
Yes, but the slowdown is not normally significant.

43 Are all these models available in Safeti 8.1 as well?

Blowdown and isolation are in Safeti 8.1. The new time-varying discharge model and time-varying
dispersion modelling were introduced in Safeti 8.0.

44 Significance of Averaging Time, flammable 18.75 sec & Toxic

600 Sec?
The 18.75s and 600s averaging times are used by default for modelling flammable and toxic
releases respectively. The former represents the instantaneous or maximum concentration usually of
interest when considering flammable effects. The latter represents reduced ‘averaged’
concentrations where the wind meanders (concentration reduced by factor of 2). For more details
see our technical papers.

45 How significant is the effect of Isolation & Blowdown in Long

Pipeline / Route Model? Also in Risk Calculation?
The long pipeline model does not support blowdown, though it does support isolation valves. For risk
it will be highly scenario-dependent.
46 How can we model Domino Effect?
Domino effect is modelled by setting the vulnerability from a hazard to the vulnerability which will
lead to escalation. So the domino effect is not fully modelled, but the probability/frequency of
having escalation (domino effect) can be calculated. However in Safeti Offshore the domino effect is
fully modelled, from the initiating event to the final event as well as Mustering, evacuation and
escape during the phases of escalation.

47 For jet fires, are you not able to specify a particular time of
interest...for escalation purposes...i.e. to characterize the
behavior of the jet fire at the specified time of interest?
Yes, you can specify a time of interest.

48 Are you able to specify a pump (liquid) or compressor

(vapour) throughput with safety system performance?
Time-varying orifice leaks from process vessels cannot be modelled together with pumps and
compressors. However, for long pipeline models, you may specify a constant pumped inflow
together with isolation valves along the pipe.

49 What about modelling the flashing liquid you can meet in a

leak of a liquefied gas?
The models do support the release of flashing liquids, including droplet evaporation prior to rainout.
ABOUT DNV GL
DNV GL is a global quality assurance and risk management company. Driven by our purpose of
safeguarding life, property and the environment, we enable our customers to advance the safety
and sustainability of their business. Operating in more than 100 countries, our professionals are
dedicated to helping customers in the maritime, oil & gas, power and renewables and other
industries to make the world safer, smarter and greener.

DIGITAL SOLUTIONS
DNV GL is a world-leading provider of digital solutions for managing risk and improving safety and
asset performance for ships, pipelines, processing plants, offshore structures, electric grids, smart
cities and more. Our open industry platform Veracity, cyber security and software solutions support
business-critical activities across many industries, including maritime, energy and healthcare.