PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

SPECIALREPORT

Constructing and designing

blast-resistant buildings
New technology improves safety and reliability
for this critical plant structure
G. GEHRING, MB Industries, Rayne, Louisiana,
and P. SUMMERS, MMI Engineering, Houston, Texas

he design and construction of

buildings to resist accidental explosions within hydrocarbon processing and chemical manufacturing (HPCM)
facilities is not something new; however,
there have been many advances over recent
years. Spurred by recent events that have
caused fatalities and serious injuries, as
well as the various regulatory requirements, the demand for buildings that will
protect workers from blast overpressures is
at an all-time highand it is anticipated
that these demands will remain constant,
if not increase, over the years to come.
Guidelines. In large part, advances in

the design/build of blast-resistant buildings

has fueled greater demand for these structures. This has been created in response to
regulatory bodies addressing concerns for
worker safety. During the early 1990s, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began to express concerns
for workers safety due to fatalities and serious injuries. These resulted from collapsing

FIG. 1

Five-module building complex.

buildings that were not designed to withstand pressures associated with accidental
explosions. Although OSHA set forth many
requirements through its published Process
Safety Management (PSM) standards, it had
no comprehensive requirements to address
concerns associated with buildings.
In reaction to these requirements, the
American Petroleum Institute (API) and
the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA) chose to establish their own guidelines to satisfy OSHAs concerns. These
guidelines have become known as API RP752 or Recommended Practice 752 and
have been in use since 1996. This guideline
requires that facilities governed by OSHAs
PSM standards (virtually all HPCM companies) evaluate the following:
1. Which areas of the plants facilities
are capable of producing an accidental
explosion (also known as a blast event)
2. Which buildings within these areas
are subject to potential damage from the
blast event (the primary concern being
collapse)

FIG. 2

3. How the workers within these subject buildings will be protected.

Governmental agencies such as OSHA
and the National Chemical Safety Board
(CSB) continue to examine accident root
causes that involve fatalities and injury, and
how these events could have been avoided.
No longer is the lack of knowledge an
acceptable excuse for having substandard
buildings or trailers in process areas.
Today, the process industry knows what
is required and failure to comply with these
requirements could subject a company to
enormous liability risks. The HPCM has
had almost 10 years to correct deficiencies in
worker housing. With this said, companies
have been given adequate time to carry out
an action plan; those who have not are now
feeling pressure to take aggressive actions to
meet all necessary requirements.
Facility siting analysis. Plants are ana-

lyzed to see which areas can produce a blast

overpressure and how these blasts will affect
given areas of the plant site. This is referred

10,080 ft2 multilevel clear span complex.

HYDROCARBON PROCESSING NOVEMBER 2005

I 55

SPECIALREPORT

FIG. 3

PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 1. US Atomic Energy Commissions The Effects
of Nuclear Weapons
Building type

Blast-resistant building. Specialized

engineering firms and manufacturers have

teamed together to research and develop
solutions for safety requirements created
by RP-752. Today, steel-fabricated, blastresistant buildings are the optimum solution for worker safety and equipment protection (Fig. 1). Although steel-fabricated,
blast-resistant buildings are a recent development for land-based plant facilities, they
actually have their roots in the offshore oil
and gas production marketplace.

I NOVEMBER 2005 HYDROCARBON PROCESSING

Consequences
Roof and walls collapse

Unreinforced masonry
building (bearing walls)

1.5

Complete collapse

Pre-engineered steel
building

2.5

Frame stands, but cladding

and interior walls are
destroyed

Steel-fabricated, blastresistant building

25+

Per design basis (can be no

damage or clients stated
limit)

Displacement time history.

to as a facility siting analysis. Typically,

this report will provide an overview of the
plants layout and depict various sized concentric rings surrounding each blast source.
These rings represent the areas which will
be affected by the blast and to what degree
they will be impacted. The highest pressures
are nearest the blast source and dissipate for
each ring thereafter. These concentric rings
may overlap, as many facilities have multiple
sources for blast pressures.
In many instances, the solution for
protecting workers in these buildings is as
simple as moving the building occupants
to an area outside the blast zone (the area
containing buildings that can be subject to
the blast). This is the preferred protection
method. Although it may be more desirable,
it is not always feasible. RP-752 was created
recognizing that, in many cases, it is necessary for plant workers to be sited within a
potentially hazardous area created by an accidental explosion. It is critical to the plants
ongoing operations for these workers to be
there and, in fact, their absence from this
area could potentially cause the accidental
explosion. This is the case for many of the
plants operators, who oversee and control
various plant processes. It is also the case
for many workers during plant maintenace,
upgrade and expansion projects.

56

Wood-framed trailer

Peak side-on
overpressure, psi

For over 50 years, the steel-fabricated

building concept has been used for offshore
applications, which also call for high-end
design challenges. Although a blast is typically not a large concern for offshore applications, hurricane-force winds and fires are
major concerns. Offshore buildings can range
from a small, temporary emergency shelters,
to extremely large building complexes that
can serve as living quarters for hundreds of
workers. Although offshore applications for
steel buildings require that they perform well
under dynamic loading conditions, modern
onshore steel-fabricated blast-resistant buildings have taken this concept to a new level.
Prior to 1999, blast-resistant buildings designed for HPCM facilities generally utilized concrete construction with a
large amount of steel reinforcement. These
buildings were primarily used as control
rooms. Although this type of design and
construction is still utilized today, it is
widely recognized that steel construction
offers advantages under dynamic loads,
such as those resulting from blasts associated with a vapor cloud explosion (VCE)
the type of accidental explosion that can be
produced within HPCM facilities. Steel
construction offers extremely high levels
of ductility and energy absorbing capacitysomething concrete does not doand
performs extremely well under dynamic
loading conditions. Table 1 shows how
concrete structures, trailers and light-gauge
steel buildings perform when impacted by
various blast pressures.
Unlike the typical pre-engineered steel
building that has small to mid-sized structural members (with poor structural shapes
for blast loading), todays blast-resistant steel
buildings utilize medium to heavy structural members with ideal (highly energyabsorbing) structural response properties
and heavy crimped-steel plate. The method

of attaching the members and plate does

not utilize any bolts or screws; rather, this
construction type utilizes welded connections. This is typically continuous welding
on the exterior and stitch welding on the
interior. These buildings can be designed
for virtually any blast load and multiple
damage response levels.
The lowest blast overpressures that are
typically addressed in HPCM facilities are in
the range of 1 to 2 pounds per square inch
(psi). The term overpressure typically refers
to a free-field overpressure, i.e., a pressure
at a point without considering the obstruction that the building itself has on the pressure wave. Thus, the building interacts with
the dynamics of this pressure to have an
effect on all exposed building surfaces (front
wall, roof, side walls, rear wall, and potentially the buildings underside if it is elevated
off the ground). In contrast, the term pressure can also refer to the reflected pressure,
which is roughly 2 times the free-field
overpressure and only impacts the buildings
surfaces that face the blast source.
Even these relatively small overpressures
are well beyond the design parameters of
typical building designsa 1-psi blast is
considerably stronger than any wind load.
In fact, some blast overpressures associated
with a VCE explosion can impact building structures with free field overpressures
in excess of 20 psi, or well over 50-psi
reflected pressure, or the equivalent of over
2.8 million pounds of pressure exerted
(virtually instantaneously) on a 10 40
wall facing the blast source.
Due to the enormous loads associated
with blast overpressures, both the designs
and the manufacturing techniques for steelfabricated buildings have gone well beyond
traditional offshore building construction.
New design analysis techniques have been
applied including finite element analysis

PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

SPECIALREPORT

FIG. 4

Single degree of freedom analysislines of constant

damage.

(FEA) and computational fluid dynamics

(CFD) modeling. Structural shapes that
have been used in the past are almost nonexistent in todays blast-rated steel buildings. Welding requirements have significantly increased, the welder certifications
and quality control procedures are more
critical than ever before.
Personnel. In addition to critical opera-

tions personnel, there are also many projects requiring contract workers to be deep
within process areas. These projects can be
associated with plant expansions, revamps
or turnaround maintenance projects that
involve work within various process areas.
The size and scope of turn-around projects
can vary greatly, as can the time required to
perform the work and the number of workers necessary to complete it.
Since turn-around projects require that
process equipment come off-line (be shut
down), these projects are very carefully
planned, sometimes for months, and the
work is usually performed around the clock
with as many workers as practical. Considering that a large refinery can generate over
$2 million dollars of revenue within a single
day, there is a very considerable economic
motivation to get the work completed as
quickly as possible.
The most dangerous time during a turnaround projects cycle is typically either
when the equipment is being shut down or
re-started. This is when there is the highest
probability for an accidental explosion to
occur. It is also when the most workers are
required for the project. Because the turnaround workers usually need to be close to
the work at hand, many of them will need
to be housed within potentially hazardous

FIG. 5

A typical recent six-module building model.

areas. Not only is it highly cost ineffective

to house these workers away from the process equipment being worked on, but it
can also become a safety issue due to the
reduced ability to supervise and effectively
communicate among workers.
Steel construction. Today, highly
specialized engineering firms and manufacturing companies have the capability to
eliminate the portion of the construction
that performs poorly (typically non-ductile
masonry and/or reinforced concrete) and
keep the structural portions of the construction limited to steela material that
performs extremely well under dynamic
loading conditions (such as a blast event).
Steel-fabricated modularized buildings
offer advantages over the conventional
construction techniques that extend well
beyond superior design characteristics.
These include a significantly reduced project
schedule; substantial cost savings; increased
quality control; the ability to have all or
most of the buildings construction taking
place away from the process plant site (also
advantageous from an OSHA recordable
standpoint); and the capabilities of relocating the buildings in the future.
Advanced design. From a structural

standpoint, specialized engineering firms

have utilized a wide array of techniques and
procedures to make significant advances in
designing buildings to withstand overpressures. Modern blast-resistant modularized
buildings can range from single module
structures to multi- module and multistory framed structures with floor areas of
up to and beyond 10,000 sq ft (Fig. 2).
These buildings have been designed

using static analysis, dynamic single degree

of freedom methods (SDOF), as defined in
ASCE (1997), as well as by dynamic finite
element analysis methods. Dynamic finite
element analysis has been used where the
loads are onerous and to prevent excessively
conservative building designs that can arise
when using equivalent static methods or
dynamic SDOF methods. When using the
equivalent static load and dynamic SDOF
procedures, the building response analysis
is generally divided into two partsa local
wall and roof panel analysis, and the building frame analysis. The local panel analysis
is used to define an adequate panel cross
section for the applied loads. Dynamic
response is defined using a SDOF approach
to determine peak ductility levels.
An equivalent static load approach can
be used to determine the members of the
frame. Equivalent static blast loads are
derived using the empirical relationship
between peak applied loads and building
resistance defined by ASCE 42:
P
=
R

( 2 1)

td
T

( 2 1) Td

2 0.7 + d
T

where: P = peak applied load

R = structural resistance
td = duration of the applied load
T = building period of vibration
= structural ductility factor
(ratio of maximum displacement to displacement at first
yield in the structure).
Dynamic effects are included in the
above relationship in the form of the ratio
between the duration of the applied load
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING NOVEMBER 2005

I 57

PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

Goodyear
Star Distributors

FIG. 6

FIG. 7

Nonlinear finite element analysismaximum displacement.

Blast door response to 12-psi freefield pressure (equivalent plastic

strain at end of blast time history).

and the building period of response (td /

T ). Inelastic response is included in the
empirical relationship by specification of
the permissible building ductility.
Fig. 3 contains the SDOF model and
output from software for this analysis. A
useful extension of SDOF modeling is the
graphical presentation of results via pressure-impulse (P-I) curves, which is lines of
constant damage for a given component or
an entire building (Fig. 4). Such a tool is
useful for rapid screening of components
against numerous blast hazards, each with
different pressures and durations (hence,
different impulse levels).

The nonlinear finite element method

approach is based on evaluating the response
of a full building model to the applied blast
loads (Fig. 5). The model includes definitions for all primary structural members that
are used to resist blast loads. Geometric and
material nonlinearity are utilized to develop
stress stiffening (or membrane effects) under
large displacement and inelastic response of
the building members, respectively. These
analyses are typically carried out using a
finite element program capable of modeling
nonlinear material and geometric behavior
in the time domain.
Member sizes and thicknesses are determined from the analysis based on the
acceptable response levels. The analysis procedure also includes evaluating connection
loads. Blast loads are applied to the model
representing front face, side-wall and roof
loads. Traditionally, the rear face loads are
ignored (per ASCE commentary) but these
can be included if required. Additionally,
each of the four walls are usually designed
for the reflected pressures (assuming blast
loads can impinge on the building from any
direction). Blast loads are applied as a time
history to all faces, and loads on the roof
and side walls include phasing to account
for the propagation of the blast wave over
the building structure. Rebound is considered in the analysis as a matter of course.
Results from the analysis include reaction forces at each anchorage point (including rebound), peak side-way of the building,
the inelastic response of each member (ductility and rotation) and the overall potential

Able Hose & Rubber

Alaska Rubber & Supply Inc.
Allwest Sales & Service
Applied Industrial Technologies
Branham Corporation
CFM Industrial Rubber
C.V. Harold Rubber Co., Inc.
Carolina Rubber & Specialties, Inc.
Catawba Industrial Rubber Co., Inc.
Coastal Hose & Rubber, Inc.
Dennis Bahcall Rubber Company, Inc.
FLEX-ING, Inc.
GRW Equipment
Hampton Rubber Co.
Hart Industries
Hitech Piping
International Belt and Rubber Supply
Lake Charles Rubber and Gasket Co.
Lewis-Goetz & Company, Inc.
McGill Hose & Coupling, Inc.
New Line Hose & Fittings
Peerless Mill Supply Co., Inc.
Pennington Rubber Company
Power Product Technologies, Inc.
Red-L Distributors Ltd.
Reliance Industrial Products
River Bend Hose Specialty, Inc.
R / W Connection Inc.
Rubber & Specialties, Inc.
Service Industrial Supply
Sunset Industrial Parts
Tiger Technologies LLC
Tipco Technologies
Triplex, Inc.

To locate your nearest

Star Distributor, go to

www.goodyear.com/starlink

ENGINEERED PRODUCTS

Select 93 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

for building instability under the applied
loads. Fig. 6 shows typical results for peak
vertical displacements in a building when
subjected to high roof blast loads.
In addition to blast loading design of
the building structures, there are numerous other structural engineering tasks that
are required, including:
Determining anchorage forces for
normal operating loads (not blast) and
blast loads in order to design the foundation. Alternatively, the building can
be designed to be unanchored for blast
loading effects. In this case, the maximum
sliding displacements, velocity and acceleration can be computed. The contents
and personnel within the building will
need to withstand these actions.
Assessment of the building for normal operating load conditions (dead load,
live load) and extreme environmental conditions (wind loads, snow loads, earthquake loads) per requirements in the local
design specification/building code, such
as IBC 2003
Blast-resistant door design. Critical doors that must be operable can be
designed to remain elastic. Other doors can
be designed with limited ductility, depending upon performance requirements. Figure 7 is a model of an existing door analysis
for a 12-psi free-field overpressure. In this
model, inelasticity was permitted.
Manufacturing. Not only have numer-

ous advances been made in designing

blast-resistant buildings, but also in the
manufacturing processes. The vast majority of building construction can take place
within a controlled environment, offering an
assembly-line type process, preventing delays
due to weather or ongoing plant operations
unassociated with building construction,
and maintaining consistent operations for a
specialized/skilled workforce. These factors
can have a large impact on the time required
to complete construction.
In addition to time, there are two other
factors that are very significant, both associated
with the ability to multi-task or multi-phase.
Since the building construction is taking place
away from or independent of the process plant
site, the site work such as utility and foundations can take place while the building modules
are being fabricated and constructed. Furthermore, the modularized steel construction can
have many construction disciplines at work
simultaneously. For example, if a control building is comprised of 10 separate modules, the
first modules to be fabricated will be finished
Select 94 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS

prior to the last, and the same will apply to

each trade such as electrical, plumbing and
various finish trades.
Conventional construction practices
take far greater time since later stages tend
to be dependant on the completion of earlier phases. It would be inconceivable to a
major car company to try building a car
out in an open field. Although this is an
extreme example, it helps to visualize the
difference between building a concrete
building on a process plant site and building a steel-fabricated building within a
facility that is dedicated to manufacturing
all-welded steel buildings.
Although steel-fabricated buildings are
significantly less costly than conventional
construction, it is not due to material costs.
In fact, the steel-fabricated construction tends
to have higher material costs since the steel
structural envelopes are more expensive than
concrete structural envelopes. There is also very
little difference in cost for the interior materials
since these can be identical for both construction types. The big difference between the two
types of construction is labor. Although the
wage rates for the skilled labor force associated
with the conventional construction might tend
to be higher, the biggest difference in cost is
time, or project schedule. The manufacturing
plant in which the steel-fabricated construction
takes place has a controllable environment and
allows for increased work efficiencies.
Work in the field vs. manufacturing facilities can have a large bearing on time, money
and quality. Since manufacturing facilities are
capable of having a highly controlled environment, as well as assembly-type processes, they
have an opportunity to exercise extremely
good quality control measures. Of course, the
building construction taking place within a
manufacturing facility does not ensure that
the final product will be high quality. In fact,
having the project take place away from the
owners plant site decreases their ability to
view the workmanship throughout the project cycle. In a worst case scenario, serious
defects can be hidden.
For this reason, an effective quality control program and the builders reputation
become extremely important. It is possible
for the manufacturers to implement a very
effective quality program with sophisticated quality management procedures,
such as those that adhere to International
Standards Organization (ISO) standards
and procedures. Furthermore, these quality systems can be certified by third-party
international standards groups, which can
then maintain a regular audit system.

PLANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

Having the building fabrication take
place in a manufacturing facility, away
from the process plant site, has two significant advantages that are unassociated
with the building itself. Since the workforce primarily remains offsite, there is
very little disruption to daily ongoing
operations within the process plant. Also,
since this workforce is not on the process
plant site (the owners plant site), the risk
of OSHA-recordable incidents has no
adverse impact.
While many modularized steel blastresistant buildings are designed/built for
permanent installations, whereby they
become impractical to move in the future,
it is also possible to design these buildings
for easy relocation, which can be performed
as often as necessary. This is especially helpful for projects within the process plants,
such as turn-around projects.
Perhaps, as important as expert engineers and a highly skilled labor force, the
facilities need to be state-of-the-art. Some
of the steel-fabricated, blast-resistant
modules can weigh as much as 100,000
pounds and have rigorous welding require-

ments. A precise fit-up is required for the

structural steel skeleton of the modules,
especially if these modules are going to
be joined together to make multi-module
complexes.
The future. As can be seen, events of

recent years have brought about numerous developments in safety for the HPCM
industry. Regulatory bodies have developed safety requirements, such as RP-752,

SPECIALREPORT

while specialized structural engineering

firms and manufacturers have teamed and
continuously worked toward developing
the optimum solution for preventing
fatalities or serious injuries during accidental explosions. Today, companies now
have the capability to efficiently design for
and ensure worker safety during accidental
explosions, as well as to provide cost-effective blast-resistant buildings designed and
manufactured to meet their needs. HP

Gary Gehring is a principal and

Paul Summers is a principal and

vice president of business development at MB Industries, and has 18

years of experience in the design,
project management, consulting
and sales of modular buildings for
high-end applications. He has a BS degree in business
administration from Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania. Prior to his service with MB Industries, which
began in 2000, he had a key role in the growth of
Total Building Systems, also a steel-fabricated modular
building company, and had earned many top-achiever
awards with Acton Mobile Industries at various branch
locations throughout the Southeastern US. For more
information, the author can be reached at www.mbindustries.com or (866) 334-1904.

manager of structural engineering at

MMI Engineering in Houston, Texas. He
is a registered civil and structural engineer in California, Texas and Louisiana.
He has 25 years of experience in the
analysis, design and retrofit of offshore structures, industrial facilities, tanks, pipelines and buildings subjected to
static, dynamic, blast, seismic and wind loadings. Mr. Summers has a BS degree in structural engineering and applied
mathematics from the University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia, and an MS degree in structural engineering from the University of Texas. He also co-founded MMI
Engineering in 2001. Mr. Summers has recently been the
responsible structural engineer for blast-resistant building
and foundation design for control buildings at over 30 US
refineries and petrochemical facilities.

Select 95 at www.HydrocarbonProcessing.com/RS
HYDROCARBON PROCESSING NOVEMBER 2005

I 61