Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep

Forced ventilation effect by Air-Fin-Cooler in modularized

onshore LNG plant
M. Tanabe a, , A. Miyake b
a

Engineering HSE Group, HSE Systems Department, Engineering Division, JGC Corporation, 2-3-1, Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama
220-6001, Japan
b Laboratory for Safety Engineering and Risk Management, Yokohama National University, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan

a b s t r a c t
Many base load onshore LNG plants use large number of Air-Fin-Coolers normally mounted on the center pipe rack
of the LNG process train. Further, the LNG plant modularized approach requires large, complex structures (modules)
for supporting the LNG process equipment and for allowing sea and land transportation. This results in additional
congestion of the plant and large voids under module-deck, which are conned by large girders. Thus, in case of
leaks, the proper ventilation to reduce the accumulation of gas is critical for the safety of the plant.
This paper evaluates the Air-Fin-Cooler induced air ow in modularized LNG plants using Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) analysis.
The results of this evaluation show that the ventilation of the Air-Fin-Cooler induced air ow is inuenced by the
process train orientation. Further, a moderate increase is observed in specic design conditions or areas, such as
shorter separation distances between modules. Based on the results of this evaluation, four design measures are
proposed to optimize the use of Air-Fin-Cooler, such as train orientation against prevailing wind direction and use
of the grating deck material.
2012 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air-Fin-Cooler; Forced ventilation; Separation distance; LNG

1.

Introduction

Many base load onshore LNG plants use Air-Fin-Coolers (AFC)

to remove heat for refrigeration cycle in liquefaction process.
Since the required duty for cooling for refrigeration cycle is
huge in recent large capacity base load onshore LNG plants,
large number of AFCs are applied for the required large duty
and normally mounted on the center pipe rack of the LNG
process train. For example, 45 MMTPA (Million Metric Ton Per
Annual) capacity LNG process train has over 250 AFC fans and
those AFCs are normally mounted on the center piperack of
the LNG process train.
Several ongoing LNG plant projects are planning to apply
modularization concept in order to mitigate environmental
impact and difculty of remote site construction by using
fabrication yard for plant construction as a substitute of site
construction. The modularized onshore LNG plant equipment

has to be mounted on the module structure for supporting the

LNG process equipment and for allowing sea and land transportation. The rst deck level is normally approximate 4 m
in height and large voids are left under the deck surrounded
by 2 m deep module structure girders (Tanabe and Miyake,
2010). To minimize gas accumulation in these spaces is the
one of important safety aspects in the modularized onshore
LNG plant. Thus, the modularized LNG plant has higher explosion risk than normal stick-built LNG plant, and then the ACH
may become important indicator for safety.
High wind velocity has been observed in actual LNG process train site using AFC air cooling process (measured in
20092010). The high wind velocity increases especially in gaps
for safety separation and maintenance access, compared with
the process area, which is congested. The forced ventilation
air ow by AFC in LNG process facilities layout is shown in
Figs. 1 and 2.
There are several ways to reduce risk by explosion,
e.g., reducing possibility of ammable gas accumulation,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 45 682 8505; fax: +81 45 682 8850.
E-mail addresses: tanabe.masayuki@jgc.co.jp (M. Tanabe), atsumi@ynu.ac.jp (A. Miyake).
Received 23 September 2011; Received in revised form 11 July 2012; Accepted 4 September 2012
0957-5820/$ see front matter 2012 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.09.001

352

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 1 Air ow by AFC in LNG process train (plan view).

mitigating explosion consequence (separation distance and
equipment layout) and making structures withstand the
expected blast load (blast resistant design). This basic principle is applied for both onshore stick-built and modularized
LNG plants.
Although the equipment layout and the blast resistant
design are commonly applied as countermeasure for explosion risk in actual plant design, such as the gap between
congested regions in view of minimization of explosion

consequence for both stick-built and modularized plants

(van den Berg and Versloot, 2003; Mores et al., 1996; Huser
et al., 2009; Paterson et al., 2000; Pitblado et al., 2006), the
reducing the possibility of ammable gas accumulation is not
commonly taken as a reliable safeguard since quantication
of the ventilation effect in open area is complex.
The AFC fans are normally stopped in emergency conditions, as the AFC is not considered safeguard, but only as
process equipment (i.e., heat exchangers). Process design of

Fig. 2 Air ow by AFC in LNG process train (side view).

353

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Table 1 CFD model strategy.

CFD modeling

Purpose

Modeling

Advantage

Disadvantage

Remarks

Detailed CFD model

To evaluate
detailed air ow
for each case

Actual geometry
for all equipment
Air ow based on
AFC fan
performance
curve

Can
provide/quantify
detailed air
ow/ventilation for
each module

Require detailed vendor

data (later phase)
Difculties in dening
detailed model for large
scale geometry
Signicant
computational time and
cost dictates that few
simulations are able to
be run in a practical
timescale

Not used in this

study

Simplied CFD model

To determine
trends of in/out
ows (target
volumea )
considering
high/low packing
density

Actual geometry
only for large
equipment
Porosity used for
congested area
(where
calculated
porosity is less
than 0.9)
Constant AFC air
ow

Early results due to

the use of
preliminary data
Can
provide/quantify
area ventilation
trends, and hence a
basis for comparison
of design options
Save computational
time and cost

Sensitivity not based on

detailed geometry
Flow patterns arising
from small scale
geometry might not be
accurately captured
The effect of variations
of incoming air ow on
fan performance is not
captured

Used in this
study

Target volumes in this study are above deck area, below deck area and gap.

AFC species the required duty for the process uid cooling
and AFC is designed to provide the required air ow rate for
the duty accordingly. However, the Air Change per Hour (ACH),
which is an indicator of ventilation and the function of area
volume and air ow rate, is not normally calculated. Thus, in
the current standard design practice, the AFC forced air ow
is not effectively used for enhancing the ventilation (i.e., to
reduce possibility of ammable gas accumulation), in particular with modular design, during emergencies.
The study is planned in two steps (1) to quantify ventilation by ACH as general indication for ventilation effect and
(2) to check gas dispersion trend (e.g., buoyancy, release direction). This paper covers the rst step and estimates the forced
ventilation effect of AFC (i.e., the increase of ACH due to the
AFC induced air ow over natural ventilation) inside modularized LNG process trains which have higher congestion than
traditional onshore stick built LNG plant. Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) analysis has been used for the estimates and
for evaluating the design measures for increasing ACH without
modifying AFC process design, such as
1. The increase of ventilation in the modules and gaps due to
wind conditions and orientation of the trains
2. The impact on AFC induced air ventilation of
modules separation distances
deck material
Based on the ndings from this paper, the second step will
cover gas dispersion study using CFD for the following model
geometries and leak parameters
1. Geometries
wind conditions and orientation of the trains
modules separation distances
deck material
2. Leak parameters
leak release direction (downward and horizontal)
buoyancy (methane gas, LNG, propane).

2.

Methodology

2.1.

Strategy

The simplied geometry is structured, rather than accurate

geometry, for the CFD model in this study. The advantage and
disadvantage of the both models are summarized in Table 1.
Although detailed air ow behavior around small equipment
and piping can be identied by the detailed CFD model, it
requires signicant computational cost. The simplied model
can provide area (i.e., above module, below module and gap)
ventilation, which is sufcient indicator for ventilation, and
comparison among design options by quantifying the area
ventilation with reasonable computational cost.

2.2.

Study basis

The basic design data of an LNG plant of 4 MMTPA capacity

(recent typical base load LNG single train capacity) is used for
the study as follows:

Plant capacity: 4 MMTPA

AFC mounted height on the center piperack: 23.4 m
Total induced air ow rate by AFCs: 22,620 m3 /s
Size of LNG process train: 400 m (L) 250 m (W)
Size of module: 40 m (W) 40 m (L) 17 m (Height to top
deck) including module deck height of 4 m (below deck)
Size of AFC mounted piperack: 336 m (L) 32 m (W) 23.4 m
(H)
Number of fan of AFC per train: 282.

2.3.

Air change per hour

The increase in ventilation due to the AFC forced air ow is

evaluated based on the increase of Air Changes per Hour (ACH)
compared to that for natural ventilation, used as a datum.

354

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

The Air Change per Hour (ACH) is calculated based on the

following formula.
Qa = Vmod

R
3600

(1)

where
Qa : Air Flow Rate (m3 /s)
Vmod : Free Module Volume (m3 )
R : Air Change Rate per Hour
Since the ACH calculation is simply related to free volume
in the area and air ow rate passing through the area, it is
important to correctly identify the detailed air ow inside the
area (Horan and Finn, 2008; Matsuura et al., 2010; Deru and
Burns, 2003). Therefore, CFD analysis has been used.

2.4.

Expected design sensitivity

The detailed air ow inside the process train, which is a component of the ACH calculation, is affected by such factors as

pressure loss in the module

wind direction relative to process train orientation
wind speed
separation distance between modules
module deck material.

Taking into account above factors, the following two major

engineering options (module separation distance and deck
oor material) are identied and their sensitivity of increase
ACH is evaluated by CFD.
In case the wind direction is perpendicular to the process
train axis, AFC induced air ows passes through the modules
and the gaps between them as shown in Fig. 3. Since a module
has certain density and a resulting resistance to air ow, the
difference between the module and the gap densities results
in an unequally distributed air ow, i.e., greater ow velocity
through the gap than the modules. Thus, there is a potential
advantage using narrow gaps in order to increase the air ow
rate (better ventilation) in the gap as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 Image of narrow separation distance.

Selection of module deck material is one of the key design

elements for modularized plant. There are two materials that
can be used for deck oor: solid plate or grating. The solid plate
deck has the advantage of reducing site work for grade paving
under module, since spillage is collected on the deck (Fig. 5).
This concept is used in offshore plants, i.e., FPSO to avoid spill
on the ship hull deck. Grating deck instead has the advantage
of enhancing natural ventilation, thus reducing the amount
of gas accumulation under the deck (Fig. 5). This concept is
similar to traditional onshore plant, i.e., enhancing the natural
ventilation.

3.

CFD analysis model

3.1.

General

The CFD analysis was conducted by MMI Engineering, UK. CFX

(ANSYS) is used for this study due to large number of source
terms and required mesh size.
The AFC ventilation is evaluated in terms of ACH by Formula (1). The air ow passing through the target volume (e.g.,
under the 1st oor deck, above 1st oor deck and gap between
modules) is measured for each face of the volume under consideration. The ACH is calculated based on the net inow and
outow to/from the target volume.

3.2.

Assumed atmospheric conditions

The following are the major model and cases assumptions

used for this study.

Fig. 3 Image of wide separation distance.

atmospheric temperature: 300.15 K

atmospheric stability class: D (neutral condition)
Vertical wind prole: Wind measurement height is 10 m
with logarithmic velocity proles as shown in Fig. 6. The
wind speed at ground level is lower than that far above
ground due to the existence of an assumed atmospheric
boundary layer, i.e., friction with the ground.

355

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 5 Side view of deck concept (solid plate vs. grating decks).

Fig. 6 Wind speed prole.

3.3.

Simulated scenarios

The CFD analysis has been done for the cases shown in
Table 2. The 2 wind speed cases are selected for the study,
which are 5 m/s and 10 m/s. Since AFC forced ventilation

air ow effect is evaluated comparing to natural ventilation,

lower atmospheric wind speed cases than 5 m/s are expected
to have better results for AFC ventilation effect (i.e., larger
increase of ACH in AFC-on case comparing to ACH in AFC-off
case).

Table 2 Run cases.

Analysis
Baseline analysis

Conditions
a ,b

AFC-on/off

Wind speed
Train orientation (wind
direction)

Sensitivity analysis

Separation distances
between modules
Deck oor material

a
b

AFC-on: Induced ow by AFC fans.

AFC-off: Natural ow without AFC fans.

Run cases
AFC-on
AFC-off
5 m/s
10 m/s
Perpendicular wind direction to
process train in the longitudinal
direction (from North)
Parallel wind direction to process
train in the longitudinal direction
(from West)
8m
15 m
25 m
Grating
Plating

356

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Geometry in this box is

included in CFD geometry

Local
Instrument
Room

Local Electrical
Room

Refrigeration
Compressor
Package

Refrigeration
Compressor
Package

Symmetry planes
Fig. 7 N-Wind model area.

3.4.

Simulation model

The CFD model is developed as below.

N-Wind model and W-Wind model
In order to keep the computational grid to a practical size,
only the central part of the LNG train is included in the computational model as illustrated in Fig. 7 (N Wind case) and
8 (W Wind case).
For simulations in which the imposed wind direction is from
the north, it is assumed that there is geometric and ow
symmetry in the planes shown in the Fig. 7. The module layout for the xed module separation simulations with wind
from the north is based on this layout, with two typical
modules included to both the north and south of the AFCs.
For simulations in which the imposed wind direction is from
the west, it is assumed that there is geometric and ow symmetry in a plane between the two banks of AFCs, shown in
the Fig. 8. The module layout for the xed module separation simulations with wind from the west is based on this

layout, with four typical modules included to the south of

the AFCs.
Model geometry and boundary
CFD geometry and boundary is as Figs. 9 and 10.
For the N wind simulations (Fig. 9), the east and west
domain boundaries are symmetry planes. All other boundaries are dened to be far from the geometry to ensure
a stable solution. The North boundary is located approximately 260 m upstream of the North modules; the South
boundary is located approximately 260 m downstream of
the South modules. The domain length in the NS direction is 650 m. The top boundary of the domain is located
approximately 140 m above the ground level.
For the W wind simulations (Fig. 10), the north boundary
is a symmetry plane. All other boundaries are dened to
be far from the geometry to ensure a stable solution. This
is located half way between the two banks of AFCs. The
West boundary is located 250 m upstream of the rst AFCs.
The East boundary is located 300 m downstream of the
nal AFCs, so the width of the domain varies with module

Fig. 8 W-Wind model area.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 9 CFD model boundary for N-Wind case

(perpendicular to the process train axis).
separation. As for the N wind simulations, the top boundary of the domain is located approximately 140 m above the
ground level.
AFC Model
AFC fans are modeled using the AFC air ow rate taken
from actual LNG plant data. The number of AFC is 18. Each
AFC has several bays and each bay has 3 fans. Total number of fans is 282 and total volumetric ow through AFC is
22,620 m3 /s. In the CFD model, only AFC fans included in
the CFD geometry is modeled. The ow rate per fan is calculated as the total for that designated type of fan divided
by the number of fans of that type. The raised temperatures
are set at AFC outlet. The inlets to the AFCs are dened as

357

domain outlets with no constraint on temperature. The outlets from the AFCs are dened as domain inlets, with the air
entering the domain constrained to have the temperature
dened by the actual design information. The temperature
is applied uniformly across the boundary.
Mesh
CFD model mesh is established as shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
Finer mesh size is applied to the modules and AFC and the
mesh size is gradually enlarged toward the model boundary. The minimum and maximum mesh sizes are 0.5 m and
5 m. The total number of mesh elements is summarized in
Table 3.
Equations
The equations used in the CFD are summarized in Table 4.
The large equipment is modeled explicitly in the CFD model.
The loss term due to small pieces of equipment is established as a friction factor only (Figs. 1315).
Module congestion is represented by applying porosity
less than unity and a ow resistance source term for the
momentum equation based on the Modied Porosity Distributed Resistance (MPDR) model (Vianna, 2009).
In CFX there is a signicant computational cost associated
with using porosity not equal to unity. Hence the full porous
model is only applied to congested regions with a volume
porosity  below 0.90. It is judged that regions with porosity greater than this would not affect the ow signicantly
enough to justify the computational expense of using porosity
less than unity, since the terms in equations for porosity less
than unitiy would be almost identical to those in equations
for porosity equal to unity in Table 4.
It would be impractical to calculate the volume porosity
 for each computational cell in the domain, so each identied congested region is assumed to have uniform volume

Fig. 10 CFD model boundary for W-Wind case (parallel to the process train axis).

Fig. 11 Mesh cut plane for N Wind (Perpendicular to the Process Train Axis) simulations.

358

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 12 Mesh cut plane for W Wind (parallel to the process train axis) simulations.
porosity throughout the region. The volume porosity for each
congested region is calculated independently from the actual
model data, with the region boundaries identied through
manual inspection of the model. The locations of these regions

are shown in Figs. 16 and 17. The volume porosities calculated

are range of 0.730.86 as shown in Table 5.
The friction factor is determined independently as a function of ow velocity for each congested region and coordinate

Table 3 Number of mesh elements.

Model

Module separation

Total number of mesh elements for N-Wind model

Total number of mesh elements for W-Wind model

8m

15 m

25 m

8 m (plated deck)

3,794,883
5,169,127

4,641,226
5,517,911

4,699,063
6,252,662

3,782,113
5,169,160

Table 4 Equations in CFD.

Terms

Equations

Remarks

Turbulence

Commonly used
Based on eddy-viscosity concept

Energy

t + ( U h) = ( T) +  :
U + SE

Steady/Transient
Continuity

Steady state simulations

Porosity equal to unity:

t + ( U) = 0
Porosity less than unity:

t   + ( K U) = 0
Porosity equal to unity:
(U)
t + ( U U) =
p +  + SM Porosity less than
unity:

t (  U) + ((K U) U)

Momentum

(h)


Flow resistance

Friction factor

e K U + (U) 23 U
SM p
SM,i = Kloss,i (/2)|U|Ui
Ri = SM,i
|u |
Kloss,i = 1 |U|i Aw fi

fi,pl = 0.0048Re0.2
i
fipr =



0.23 +

 0.11
1.08 Re0.15

i
0.5
P
D

represents the volume porosity and K represents

the area porosity tensor
The term SM in the momentum equations
represents a momentum source term. This includes
the effects of buoyancy and any user dened ow
resistance.
where Aw is the wetted area of obstacles per unit
volume (calculated based on porosity) and is the
friction factor.
Since Aw is different for each congested region, and
is different for each congested region and
coordinate direction, a different value of Kloss,i is
specied for each congested region and coordinate
direction.
Rei =

CFX thermal energy equation

Simplied equation suitable for low Mach number
ows of compressible gases
Convergence criteria of 1e5 was used
represents the volume porosity and K represents
the area porosity tensor

Rei =

|ui |Dn

|ui |D


Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 13 Module 3D model assessed in CFD analysis (birds

eye view).

359

Fig. 15 Module 3D model assessed in CFD analysis (east

side).
- typical dimension of the obstacles
- pitch between the obstacles
- hydraulic diameter of the spaces between the obstacles.
The parameters used to calculate friction factors are shown
in Table 6.

4.

CFD analysis results and discussion

The results of the CFD analysis are shown in Tables 79. The
results are summarized based on the effect of AFC-on, separation distance, and deck oor material in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and
4.3, respectively.

Fig. 14 Module 3D model assessed in CFD analysis (north

side).
direction, and is a function of the following which were determined manually by inspection of the 3D model:
- orientation of the obstacles relative to the ow direction

4.1.

Increase of ACH due to AFC-on

The effect of AFC air ow through modules is shown in Table 7.

The major observation on the ACH increases due to AFC-on is
that the ACH increases especially below deck area (Deck EL.
+4 m) in both N-Wind and W-Wind cases.
The increase in percentage of ACH due to the AFC-on with
5 m/s wind speed over ACH due to AFC-off is

Fig. 16 Location of congested regions in modules in piperack.

360

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 17 Location of congested region in module.

Table 5 Volume porosities for congested regions.

Region name

Volume porosity ()

Piperack-1
Piperack-2
Piperack-3
Piperack-4
Piperack-5
Piperack-6
Piperack-7
Equipment Module-1
Equipment Module-2

0.823
0.805
0.839
0.840
0.831
0.853
0.862
0.732
0.741

N-Wind (perpendicular to the process train axis) case:

- 22% whole module (as minimum)
- 82% below deck (as minimum)
- 179% in N-GAP (upwind side GAP) below deck level
W-Wind (parallel to the process train axis) case:
- 7% whole module (as minimum)
- 36% below deck (as minimum)
- 36% in GAP12 below deck level (as minimum).
Note: The increase in percentage of the ACH at low wind
speed (5 m/s) is much higher than that at high wind speed

(10 m/s) because the AFC-on air ow speed (approx. 2 m/s,

constant) and the atmospheric wind speed (5 m/s) are close.
In the upwind gap in the case of perpendicular wind direction to the process train axis (N-Wind case), the increase in
percentage of ACH is signicant, as higher wind speed due to
the AFC induced air ow enhances the ACH in the gap. The
perpendicular train orientation to wind direction has better
dispersion effect in the gap for ammable gas accumulation,
and it contributes to reduce the possibility to form larger gas
cloud covering several modules and gaps, which would result
in larger explosion impact when ignited.
With natural ventilation (AFC-off), the below deck ACH
is smaller than the above deck due to vertical wind speed
prole, i.e., at ground level the horizontal speed of atmospheric wind is slower than mid-air due to friction with
the ground. Consequently with natural ventilation, the possibility of gas accumulation below deck is higher than
above deck area. The effect enhancing the ACH below
deck by AFC-on is an effective measure to reduce the
amount of gas accumulation below deck in the case of
leak.
Figs. 18 and 19 show the difference of air ow streamlines
between AFC-on and AFC-off. In the case of AFC-on (induced

Table 6 Parameters used to calculate friction factors.

Region

Hydraulic diameter, Dh (m)

Pitch between
obstacles, P (m)

Characteristic
dimension, D (m)

Piperack-1
Piperack-2
Piperack-3
Piperack-4
Piperack-5
Piperack-6
Piperack-7
Equipment Module-1
Equipment Module-2

N/A
N/A
4.05
4.05
0.67
0.42
N/A
5.07
4.48

2.5
2.5
3
3
1
0.8
8
5
4.5

0.3
0.3
0.25
0.25
0.6
0.6
0.64
1.3
1.25

Table 7 Increase of ACH due to AFC-on.

Wind cond.

Area

ACH

%Increase in ACH due to AFC-on

AFC-on
Above deck

Below deck

Whole module

Above deck

Below deck

Whole module

Above deck

Below deck

N-wind 5 m/s

NE
NW
SE
SW
N-GAP
S-GAP

660
667
603
590
684
624

690
694
607
590
722
634

856
787
732
728
1048
828

491
490
485
483
501
496

507
507
500
495
518
509

342
348
402
392
375
424

34
36
24
22
37
26

36
37
21
19
39
25

150
127
82
86
179
95

N-wind 10 m/s

NE
NW
SE
SW
N-GAP
S-GAP

1070
1076
1029
1020
1108
1083

1107
1109
1043
1029
1142
1110

1143
1057
1092
1082
1082
1183

976
975
956
951
951
978

1009
1009
985
975
975
1004

678
695
790
772
772
837

10
10
8
7
11
11

10
10
6
6
11
11

69
52
38
40
78
41

W-wind 5 m/s

M1
M2
M3
M4
GAP12
GAP23
GAP34

528
640
719
752
2534
2759
2909

538
654
735
767
2568
2809
2968

531
631
651
650
2329
2409
2360

489
470
437
422
2369
2211
2069

505
482
450
435
2438
2269
2125

361
356
365
348
1717
1657
1627

8
36
64
78
7
25
41

6
36
63
77
5
24
40

47
78
78
87
36
45
45

W-wind 10 m/s

M1
M2
M3
M4
GAP12
GAP23
GAP34

921
883
934
1018
4174
4160
4299

946
898
944
1035
4218
4200
4362

814
849
851
988
3866
3851
3706

978
938
873
847
4735
4405
4134

1010
962
898
871
4868
4514
4239

728
716
732
697
3466
3352
3284

6
6
7
20
12
6
4

6
7
5
19
13
7
3

12
19
16
42
12
15
13

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Whole module

AFC-off

Note: The results are based on 8 m separation distance.

361

362

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Table 8 Effect of separation distance with AFC-on.

Wind cond.

Area

ACH
Whole module
8 m SD

15 m SD

Above deck
25 m SD

8 m SD

Below deck

15 m SD

25 m SD

8 m SD

15 m SD

25 m SD

N-wind 5 m/s

NE
NW
SE
SW
N-GAP
S-GAP

660
667
603
590
684
624

669
668
617
607
674
638

665
672
605
593
671
610

690
694
607
590
722
634

700
694
620
608
716
646

692
693
607
593
702
614

856
787
732
728
1048
828

811
765
701
680
920
713

779
770
664
664
831
682

N-wind 10 m/s

NE
NW
SE
SW
N-GAP
S-GAP

1070
1076
1029
1020
1108
1083

1083
1080
1033
1019
1084
1052

1075
1087
1017
1025
1085
1033

1107
1109
1043
1029
1142
1110

1112
1107
1050
1032
1120
1069

1106
1113
1027
1037
1115
1047

1143
1057
1092
1082
1333
1183

1063
1027
1053
997
1171
1017

1060
1061
982
1012
1124
1024

W-wind 5 m/s

M1
M2
M3
M4
GAP12
GAP23
GAP34

528
640
719
752
2534
2759
2909

549
681
737
763
1418
1582
1695

568
714
773
766
946
1073
1131

538
654
735
767
2568
2809
2968

557
694
750
776
1436
1608
1731

577
726
786
780
960
1092
1150

531
631
651
650
2329
2409
2360

535
621
625
636
1319
1361
1403

564
634
682
673
850
957
939

W-wind 10 m/s

M1
M2
M3
M4
GAP12
GAP23
GAP34

921
883
934
1018
4174
4160
4295

925
903
980
1079
2248
2316
2523

946
924
1038
1125
1384
1483
1644

946
898
944
1035
4218
4200
4362

941
916
995
1095
2264
2335
2569

966
935
1052
1137
1396
1507
1661

814
849
851
988
3866
3851
3706

829
905
921
986
2195
2185
2167

835
859
1020
1018
1294
1354
1510

Table 9 Effect of deck material.

Wind cond.

Area ACH
Below deck
AFC-on

Above deck
AFC-off

AFC-on

Whole module
AFC-off

AFC-on

AFC-off

Grated Plated Grated Plated Grated Plated Grated Plated Grated Plated Grated Plated
N-wind 5 m/s

NE
NW
SE
SW

856
787
732
728

643
645
641
650

342
348
402
392

341
343
367
370

690
694
607
590

667
675
594
583

507
507
500
495

506
507
494
492

660
667
603
590

658
664
597
587

491
490
485
483

491
491
482
481

N-wind 10 m/s

NE
NW
SE
SW

1143
1057
1092
1082

951
958
979
981

678
695
790
772

679
683
725
730

1107
1109
1043
1029

1082
1091
1028
1018

1009
1009
985
975

1007
1009
972
969

1070
1076
1029
1020

1064
1074
1022
1013

976
975
956
951

976
978
948
946

W-wind 5 m/s

M1
M2
M3
M4

531
631
651
650

482
574
598
617

361
356
365
348

343
337
324
310

538
654
735
767

533
646
723
761

505
482
450
435

502
474
442
427

528
640
719
752

529
639
712
747

489
470
437
422

487
461
431
416

W-wind 10 m/s

M1
M2
M3
M4

814
849
851
988

742
824
875
944

728
716
731
697

693
687
659
625

946
898
944
1035

961
903
941
1014

1010
962
898
871

1004
954
888
857

921
883
934
1018

939
891
935
1007

978
938
873
847

974
929
867
835

Note: The results are based on 8 m Separation Distance.

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

363

Fig. 18 AFC-on air ow streamlines.

air ow), a vertical component in the ow (streamlines) is
observed. Refer to Section 4.3 for discussion for the vertical
component.

25% (5 m/s N-Wind case perpendicular to the process train

axis)
250% (5 m/s W-Wind case parallel to the process train axis).

4.2.

In the N-wind case, this increase is simply the result of

wind speed increase by narrowing the separation distance
between modules (gap). The ACH for W-Wind in the gaps is
relatively larger than N-Wind. However, in this case, the ACH
increase is not the results of wind speed change (the wind
speed is almost constant throughout modules and gaps) but
of reduced gap volume which results in a higher air change
rate, i.e., the channel effect with basically no crosswind in
the gaps (refer to Fig. 20).

Effect of separation distance

The effect of the separation distance between modules on the

air ow with AFC-on is shown in Table 8. The major observation on the effect of the separation distance on the ACH
is that the ACH increases with shorter distance. Specically,
the increase in percentage of ACH in N-GAP (below deck) with
a 8 m separation distance over ACH with a 25 m separation
distance is

Fig. 19 AFC-off air ow streamlines.

364

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

Fig. 20 Wind ow by difference of separation distances for W-Wind.

4.3.

Effect of deck oor material

The effect of deck material on ACH is shown in Table 9. There

are no major changes in the ACH observed for both, the AFCon and the AFC-off, due to the effect of the deck material.
However, with AFC-on below deck there is a small increase of
ACH in the case of grating.
The small increase in percentage of ACH by grating below
deck over ACH by plating is
5 m/s N-wind (perpendicular to the process train axis) case:
- 2030% for upwind modules
- 1020% for downwind modules
5 m/s W-wind (parallel to the process train axis) case:
- 1020%.
This increase is the result of better dispersion in the
below deck area due to grating with the AFC-on, because
AFC-on increases the vertical component of the air ow inside
modules (refer to Figs. 21 and 22). This effect also reduces
gas accumulation in the below deck area and the explosion
overpressure by reducing the connement.

4.4.
Recommended design option enhancing
ventilation
Based on the above results (Sections 4.14.3) in the Step-1
ventilation study, the following design approaches are identied as possible optimization for the use of AFC-on ventilation
for reducing possibility of ammable gas accumulation in
onshore modularized LNG plant.
The AFC fans should be kept running even in emergency conditions to reduce the amount of ammable gas

accumulation. (Normally AFC fan motors are stopped upon

emergency shutdown condition.) Since the boil off gas of
LNG is denser than air due to its cryogenic temperature,
methane gas cloud will be formed at ground level and
trapped for a sufcient length of time which may cause
explosion in congested areas, e.g., equipment and piping.
Therefore, although normally AFC fan motors are stopped
upon emergency conditions, to ensure a higher degree
of safety, i.e., better ventilation, the AFC should be kept
running even after a leak has been detected. This recommendation is based on the fact that the fan motors are
normally explosion proof type suitable for the hazardous
area classication Zone-2 operation to minimize the ignition probability. In order to further reduce the ignition
probability, it is also worthwhile to consider application
of Zone-1 operation certied motor. It is to be noted that
recently in one LNG project, the use of Zone-1 motor (for
variable speed motor) has been specied.
From ventilation aspect, the LNG train axis should be perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction to increase ACH
in the gaps and below deck. If the probability of the prevailing wind direction is very high, it is worthwhile to consider
using shorter separation distance between modules to further increase the ACH. However, the hazards of shorter
separation distance should be considered in the design.
When, considering other aspects such as hot air circulation,
the train axis is set parallel to the prevailing wind direction,
the separation distance should be as great as possible to
avoid the channel effect (refer to Section 4.2).
The grating deck oor has no major effect on the ACH.
However, it is worthwhile to consider using grating deck
oor in order to reduce the amount of gas accumulation
between decks (by the increase of vertical component of
the air ow in modules). This is also better for reducing the

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

365

Fig. 21 Effect of AFC and deck material on ventilation (solid plate).

Fig. 22 Effect of AFC and deck material on ventilation (grating).

explosion overpressure by reducing the connement (refer
to Figs. 21 and 22).

The above design measures shall be carefully evaluated also from other aspects, such as adverse effect by
reducing the separation distance, hot air circulation, operation/maintenance aspects. Especially, hot air circulation
phenomenon and mitigation measures shall be evaluated in
order to minimize the reduction of the AFC performance and
production rate when the train orientation is perpendicular
to the wind direction. However, since modularized approach
increases congestion of the plant and creates large voids under
the module deck, which are conned by very large girders, we
believe that the proposed approach shall be considered.
The future paper (Step-2) will further evaluate gas dispersion effect considering other parameters, such as buoyancy of
leaked gas and release direction.

5.

Conclusion

The AFC induced air ow in modularized LNG plants was

evaluated using CFD analysis to optimize the use of AFC-on
ventilation during emergencies.
The results showed that the increases in ACH in modules
due to AFC-on and train orientation were more than 80% in the
case of perpendicular wind direction to the process train axis
(N-Wind) and more than 30% in the case of parallel wind direction to the process train axis (W-Wind). Especially, the increase
in ACH in the upwind gap was signicant (more than 170%) in
the case of perpendicular wind direction to the process train
axis (N-Wind).
The increases in ACH due to the separation distances
between modules vary signicantly. The increase in ACH in
the gaps with shorter separation distance between modules
were observed to be 25% for N-Wind and 250% for W-Wind
(ACH with 8 m separation/ACH with 25 m separation at 5 m/s

366

Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 351366

wind). However, the increased ACH in the W-Wind case was

mainly due to the channel effect. Crosswind ow, which prevents ammable gas accumulation in the gaps, was increased
when separation distance between modules is increased.
No major increases of ACH were observed with grating deck
material for both, the AFC-on and the AFC-off. However, the
grating deck enhanced vertical component of the AFC-on air
ow inside modules.
Overall, the increase of the ACH is mainly due to the AFCon and train orientation. The separation distance and the deck
materials have moderate impact (increase) on the ACH in specic conditions or areas. Based on the results, four design
approaches (Section 4.4) were proposed to optimize the use
of AFC-on ventilation for onshore modularized LNG plant.
The effect of AFC ventilation should be further evaluated
by gas dispersion study using CFD (Step-2) in order to identify
the detailed behavior of leaked gas in the modules and the
gaps.

References
van den Berg, A.C., Versloot, N.H.A., 2003. The multi-energy
critical separation distance. J. Loss Prevent. Process. 16,
111120.

Huser, A., Foyn, T., Skottene, M., 2009. A CFD based approach to
the correlation of maximum explosion overpressure to
process plant parameters. J. Loss Prevent. Process. 22, 324331.
Horan, J.M., Finn, D.P., 2008. Sensitivity of air change rates in a
naturally ventilated atrium space subject to variations in
external wind speed and direction. Energ. Buildings 40,
15771585.
Matsuura, K., Nakano, M., Ishimoto, J., 2010. Forced ventilation
for sensing-based risk mitigation of leaking hydrogen in a
partially open space. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 35, 47764786.
Paterson, K., Tam, V.H.Y., Moros, T., Ward-Gittos, D., 2000. The
design of BP ETAP platform against gas explosions. J. Loss
Prevent. Process. 13, 7379.
Deru, M., Burns, P., 2003. Inltration and Natural Ventilation
Model for Whole-building Energy Simulation of Residential
Buildings. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Tanabe, M., Miyake, A., 2010. Safety design approach for onshore
modularized LNG liquefaction plant. J. Loss Prevent. Process.
23, 507514.
Pitblado, R., Baik, J., Raghunathan, V., 2006. LNG decision making
approaches compared. J. Hazard. Mater. 130, 148154.
Tam, V., Mores, T., Webb, S., Allinson, J., Lee, R., Bilimoria, E., 1996.
Application of ALARP to the design of the BP Andrew platform
against smoke and gas ingress and gas explosion. J. Loss
Prevent. Process. 9, 317322.
Vianna, S., 2009. Numerical Simulation of Accidental Explosions
in Offshore Production Plant. University of Cambridge.