Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
for the
Risk Based Analysis:
Explosion Loads
February 2015
Guidance Notes
for the
Calculation of Probabilistic
Explosion Loads
February 2015
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Lloyds Register is a trading name of Lloyds Register Group Limited and its subsidiaries. For further details please see http://www.lr.org/entities
Lloyds Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively,
referred to in this clause as Lloyds Register. Lloyds Register assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or
expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the
relevant Lloyds Register entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and
conditions set out in that contract.
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Contents
Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads
Section
1
Introduction 1
1.1
Acknowledgement 1
1.2
General 1
1.3
Abbreviations 1
2
Basic prerequisites 2
2.1
General 2
3
Modelling aspects 2
3.1
General simplification in the modelling
2
3.2
Selection of calculation domain and grid for CFD analyses
2
3.3
Reporting of the results 2
4
Leakage 3
4.1
Leakage frequency and rate 3
4.2
Transient leak modelling 3
4.3
Location and direction of leak
3
4.4
Releases of LNG and LPG 3
4.5
Releases of non-flashing liquids
5
4.6
Wind directions and strengths 5
4.7
Selection of models for dispersion simulations
5
4.8
Calculations of equivalent stoichiometric gas cloud
6
4.9
Shape of equivalent stoichiometric gas cloud
6
4.10
Turbulence from jet 6
4.11
Special considerations for totally enclosed spaces
6
5
Ignition 7
5.1
Location of gas cloud and ignition point
7
5.2
Ignition probability modelling 7
6
Explosion 7
6.1
Explosion loads 7
6.2
Geometry model and calculation domain
9
6.3
Explosion load outside the area
9
6.4
Effect of deluge 10
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
10
10
10
11
8
Uncertainty 11
8.1
Clarification
11
9
References 11
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Basic prerequisites
Modelling aspects
Leakage
Ignition
Explosion
Uncertainty
References
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Acknowledgement
1.1.1 These Guidance Notes were developed by Lloyds
Register Consulting.
1.2 General
1.2.1 Lloyds Registers Rules and Regulations for the
Classification of Offshore Units (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules for Offshore Units) require a blast/explosion load to
be defined by the Owners/Designers. This is then used as a
design basis for the offshore unit. It is usually not feasible to
design for a worst case scenario, and as credible scenarios
cannot be uniquely defined, the Rules for Offshore Units
allow for the dimensioning of explosion loads to be based on
probabilistic risk assessment techniques.
Section 1
1.3 Abbreviations
1.3.1 The following abbreviations are applicable to these
Guidance Notes unless otherwise stated:
CFD
DAL
DLM
HSE
HVAC
LEL
LNG
LPG
OLF
QRA
UEL
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Basic prerequisites
2.1 General
2.1.1 The basic prerequisites needed to perform a
probabilistic explosion assessment according to these
Guidance Notes are:
Description of all relevant hydrocarbon segments
(composition, pressure, temperature), so that leak rates with
associated frequencies can be estimated, both in gaseous
and liquefied states. These can be found from a QRA or by a
specific analysis.
Transient leak rates for different leak sizes for all process
segment volumes enclosed between shut-down valves.
The transient leak rates should be based on gas detection
layout, isolation and blow-down of the segment.
Wind statistics for the field.
A 3D-geometry model of the modules or areas to be
` analysed.
Ignition source isolation philosophy.
Defined receptors for explosion load calculations (e.g., local
and global pressure on walls and decks, differential pressure
load on equipment, and drag load in defined areas).
Risk acceptance criteria in terms of cut-off frequency for
explosion loads or response.
Sections 2 & 3
Modelling aspects
Section 3
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Section 4
Leakage
Sections 3 & 4
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Lloyds Register
Section 4
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Section 4
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Section 4
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Section 5
Ignition
step.
Distinguish between continuous sources that will ignite the
gas cloud immediately on exposure and intermittent sources
that may ignite at any time when exposed.
For continuous sources, the exposure probability must be
calculated from the new volume exposed to flammable gas.
Model single ignition sources that have a significant
contribution, such as turbine air intakes when located
outside of the area, if they can be reached by gas emanating
from the area.
Include the effect of gas detection and actions thereof as
partial isolation of ignition sources.
For enclosed spaces where the exposure duration of
the explosive cloud may be very long (see 4.11), special
considerations should be given to the ignition model for late
ignitions as they may dominate. Note that, if at any time the
module is completely filled with gas above the UEL, all
ignition sources (i.e., all points in the space) will at
some point in time be exposed to flammable gas when
the gas is vented out. This is primarily relevant for intermittent
ignition soures.
Examples of such ignition models are the OLF model, Ref. /3/,
and the JIP model, Ref. /4/.
5.2.3 Immediate spontaneous ignition is considered to occur
so quickly after the leak has started that the scenario
results in a fire (since no gas cloud has been accumulated).
It should be documented that ignition within a few seconds
after the leak has started will not result in significant explosion
loads unless such early scenarios are included in the explosion
analysis..
Section 6
Explosion
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
2
pvv2
the flow, i.e., 1/2
.
Lloyds Register
Section 6
conservative.
6.1.3 Net reaction force. The net reaction force on a general
object has a number of separate components (Ref. /5/):
1
2
(a) Form drag, 2 C d v
(b) Inertial drag (due to acceleration);
(c) Combustion effects (due to transient changes in density);
(d) Differential pressure (due to variations in static pressure,
e.g., blast waves);
(e) Hydro-elastic effects: vortex shedding movement causing
increased drag coefficient when the vortex shedding effect is
close to the natural period of vibration.
In simulation models (e.g., CFD models), the calculated
drag pressures only include the form drag (but without the
drag coefficient Cd ) whereas elements a) to d) are included
when the forces are calculated directly from the pressure
differences across the obstacle. The hydro-elastic contribution
for explosion loads is usually small and can in practice be
neglected.
Typical drag coefficient Cd can be found in Ref. /6/. Note that
those values are applicable for Re number in the range 102
105. For fully developed turbulent flows, Cd first drops and
then increases to values above those in Ref. /6/. For flows
with Mach number close to 1 the values may double, see Ref.
/7/. Note that the drag load is a vector with a direction that
depends on the location.
6.1.4 Small obstacles. Experiments have demonstrated
that the size (i.e., diameter) threshold above which the effects
(b) to (d) become significant is about 0,3m. Hence, the form
drag represents the drag force on objects with diameter <
0,3m.
6.1.5 Obstacles larger than 0,3m. The drag force on
such objects should be calculated by calculating the
differential pressure over the object, the so-called Direct
Load Measurement (DLM) method to include effects (a) to (d).
It is important to measure the pressure (i.e., locate pressure
panels or monitoring points) as close to the object as possible
to obtain the correct stagnation conditions. The accuracy of
the DLM method will accordingly be dependent on the size
of the control volume of the grid used in the CFD simulations
relative to the object size. For obstacles of about 3 times the
control volume, it is possible to locate monitor points close to
the obstacle surface. For objects of circular shape, such as
pipes, the DLM method using only a monitor point on the
upstream and downstream side of the object will overestimate
the drag load, as the pressure distribution over the obstacle
surface will be sinusoidal. In this case the load may be reduced
2
by the Pressure Distribution Factor PDF=2/.
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Fload (d
where
and
Fform +
)=
FDLM ( D ) Fform
d 0,3
D 0,3
1
Fform = A
C d v 2
2
F=
PDF FDLM (rectangular
DLM
This method does not take into account the variation of Fform
with location. This could, however, be included by performing
DLM calculations for the same object size at different locations
and using the above formula to interpolate for different object
sizes within the same local area.
6.1.6 Shock loading. In the far field of a gas explosion,
i.e., well outside the cloud, the overpressure will decay but
simultaneously steepen and eventually become a shock. An
obstacle exposed to a shock wave will experience net reaction
forces due to two effects:
(a) For overpressures <1 bar the reflected pressure is 2 x sideon pressure for a surface facing the direction of propagation,
1,4 for a surface parallel to the flow and 0,7 for a surface
opposing the flow direction, Ref. /8/. For higher pressures
the reflection factor increases. A reflected shock load can be
highly non-linear. If it interacts with a re-entrant corner the
pressure load can be significantly enhanced locally. Ref. /6/
and /9/ can be consulted for details on how to handle shock
reflections in more complex situations. See also the Rules and
Regulations for the Classification of Naval Ships which considers
shock loading resulting from underwater explosions.
Section 6
U
1 p
+ 1 p
=
1+
p0
2
p0
t 2
Lloyds Register
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Section 7
Lloyds Register
Sections 6 & 7
10
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Analysis: Explosion Loads, February 2015
Sections 7, 8 & 9
Section 9
Section 8
Uncertainty
8.1 Clarification
References
/1/ NORSOK Z-013 Risk and emergency preparedness
assessment, Annex F, 2010.
/2/ LNG source term models for hazard analyses. RR789,
Health and Safety Executive 2010.
/3/ Ignition modelling in risk analysis, Scandpower report
89.390.008/R1, March 2007.
/4/ JIP ignition model, DNV report 99-3193, rev 01, April 1999.
/5/ Explosion Loading on Topsides Equipment, OTO report
1999 046, HSE, March 2000.
/6/ W.E. Baker, P.A. Cox, P.S Westine, J.J. Kulesz, R.A.
Strehlow: Explosion Hazard Evaluation, Elsevier 1983.
/7/ FABIG Technical Note 8: Protection of Piping Systems
subject to Fires and Explosions.
/8/ Gas Explosion Handbook, Chistian Michelsen Research
GexCon 1993.
/9/ Unified Facilities Criteria from the US Department of
Defence
/10/ J. A Essers: Characterisation of the pressure wave
originating in the explosions of a gas cloud, von Karman
Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Lecture Series 1983 02.
/11/ J. Czujko: Design of Offshore Facilities to Resist Gas
Explosion Hazard, Engineering Handbook, CorrOcean
ASA, Oslo-Norway 2001.
/12/ Coldrick, S., Lea, C. J., & Ivings, M. J. (24th February
2009). Validation database for evaluating vapor dispersion
models for safety analysis of LNG facilities, guide to the LNG
model validation database. .
11
Lloyds Register
www.lr.org
Working together
for a safer world