Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Vulnerability
of plant/structure
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
P ublications
Global experience
The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technical
knowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many different
terrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines
for good practice by individual members.
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,
neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless
of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which
liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use
by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform
any subsequent recipient of such terms.
This document may provide guidance supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothing
herein, however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart from such requirements. In
the event of any conflict or contradiction between the provisions of this document and local legislation,
applicable laws shall prevail.
Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are © The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission
is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii)
the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved.” Any other use requires the prior written
permission of the OGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Eng-
land and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of
England and Wales.
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
contents
1.0 Scope and Definitions ........................................................... 1
1.1 Application ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Definitions ....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Summary of Recommended Data ............................................ 1
2.1 Fire ................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Vulnerability of Plant/Structure under Fire Loading ............................................... 2
2.1.2 Derivation of Fire Loads ............................................................................................ 4
2.2 Explosions....................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Vulnerability of Plant/Structure to Explosions ........................................................ 7
2.2.2 Overpressure Loading ............................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Drag Loading on Equipment ................................................................................... 11
2.2.4 Response of Plant/Structure ................................................................................... 12
2.3 Missiles .......................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Guidance on use of data ...................................................... 17
3.1 General validity ............................................................................................. 17
3.2 Uncertainties ................................................................................................. 17
4.0 Review of data sources ....................................................... 17
5.0 Recommended data sources for further information ............ 18
6.0 References .......................................................................... 19
6.1 References for Sections 2.0 to 4.0 .............................................................. 19
6.2 References for other data sources examined ............................................ 19
©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Abbreviations:
2D Two-dimensional
AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers
API American Petroleum Institution
BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion
BS British Standard
CCPS Center for Chemical Process Safety
CoP Code of Practice
DLM Direct Load Measurement
DNV Det Norske Veritas
ESREL European Safety and Reliability
FPSO Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit
HSE (UK) Health and Safety Executive
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LPGA LP Gas Association
MDOF Multiple Degree of Freedom
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
SDOF Single Degree Of Freedom
UKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (now Oil & Gas UK)
©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
1.2 Definitions
• Em issivity A constant used to quantify the radiation emission characteristics
of a flame: it is the fraction of the maximum theoretical radiative
flux (that of a “perfect black body”) emitted by the flame.
• Convective Flux Refers to the transfer of heat from one point to another
within a fluid, gas or liquid, by the mixing of one portion of the fluid
with another.
• Im pulse The integral of a force or load over an interval of time.
• Radiative Flux Refers to the transfer of heat from one body to another by thermal
radiation.
• Rise Tim e The time taken for the explosion overpressure to increase from
zero to the peak overpressure.
©OGP 1
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
2.1 Fire
Section 2.1.1 gives typical data for vulnerability of plant/structure under fire loading.
Characteristic data for typical hydrocarbon fires are given in Section 2.1.2.
Table 2.1 Tim e to Failure of Pipework, Vessels, Equipm ent and Structures
affected by Fire [1]
Flame with heat flux of Pressure vessel rupture < 40 min depending on the
250 kW/m2 impinging onto with the potential formation flame size with respect to
pressure vessel with no of projectiles. vessel size, vessel
fire protection. contents, wall thickness
and the size of pressure
relief/blowdown orifice.
Determine the time to
failure by multi-physics
analysis.
2 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Flame with heat flux of Loss of load bearing < 15 min depending on the
250 kW/m2 impinging capacity of a structural member size
locally onto a structural member, which may lead to
member with no fire large deformation in some
protection. locations and loss of
tightness of pipework.
Flame with heat flux of Collapse of structure or its < 30 min depending on the
250 kW/m2 impinging part leading to loss of member sizes.
locally onto a joint of tightness of pipework and
structural members or large releases of hazardous
engulfing several joints. fluids.
Flame with heat flux of Collapse of atmospheric < 40 min depending on the
250 kW/m2 impinging onto storage tanks, road tankers, flame size with respect to
the storage or transport rail tank cars and marine tank size and the tank
tanks with no fire tankers leading to large contents, fill level, wall
protection. releases of hazardous thickness and the size of
fluids. any pressure relief device.
Determine the time to
failure by multi-physics
analysis.
Notes
1. The time to failure for heat fluxes other than 250 kW/m2 should ideally be determined by
transient calculations.
2. The times to failure given are upper limits, as per the original source reference. Judgment
should be used to select a suitable minimum or other absolute value if required.
©OGP 3
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Note that these values are indicative only and, if the risks from structural failure due to
fire are significant, more detailed analysis may be required in order to determine the
thermal response of plant/structure. Generally for simple linear elements, all that is
required is the temperature distribution across the section at the mid point. This may be
computed using 2D thermal analysis. For more complex elements and whole structures,
typically the complete temperature history of all parts of the structure is required
although some simplification may be possible.
In particular, the material behaviour under elevated temperatures i.e. temperatures
above ambient, should be accounted for. The effects of elevated temperatures when the
structure is considered to be stress-free are threefold:
• reduction of modulus of elasticity and hence changes in stiffness
• reduction in yield strength of structural steel and
• thermal strains.
Data for the behaviour of various grades of steel under elevated temperatures is given
in [3].
4 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
• duration.
Other variables such as temperature, emissivity and location may be required for
particular types of numerical analysis. Generally, the following should be considered in
the determination of fire loads:
a) whether the fire is a pool or jet fire and confined/unconfined
b) whether fire is ventilation or fuel controlled
c) whether flame is obstructed/unobstructed
d) composition of fire fuel (one-phase or two-phase)
e) gas to oil ratio in the burning fluid
f) temporal and spatial variation of heat flux within a flame.
[2] and [5] include details of a wide range of pool and jet fires that enable the radiative
and convective heat transfer to be calculated more accurately than in the past for a wide
range of fire scenarios. These are presented in Table 2.3 to Table 2.7 below for high
pressure gas jet fires, high pressure two-phase jet fires, pool fires on installation, pool
fires on sea and fire loading on pressure vessels respectively.
Table 2.3 Characteristic Data for High Pressure Gas Jet Fires [2]
Table 2.4 Characteristic Data for High Pressure Two-Phase Jet Fires [2]
©OGP 5
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Table 2.7 Characteristic Fire Loading for Pressure Vessels and Other
Equipm ent [5]
The global average heat load represents the average heat load that exposes a
significant part of the process segment or structure and provides the major part of the
heat input to the process segment thereby affecting the pressure in the segment.
6 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
The local heat load exposes a small area of the process segment or structure to the
peak heat flux. The local peak heat load, with the highest flux, determines the rupture
temperature of different equipment and piping within the process segment.
2.2 Explosions
The loading on plant/structure from an explosion arises from both overpressure loading
and drag loading. The input data required for the assessment of the vulnerability of
plant/structure include:
• Peak pressure
• Impulse
• Load duration
• Rise time (to peak pressure)
• Drag pressure
• Approximate impulse duration for dynamic drag
©OGP 7
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Table 2.8 Dam age Estim ates for Com m on Structures Based on
Overpressure [6]
8 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Table 2.9 Dam age Estim ates Based on Overpressure for Process Equipm ent [7] (legend on next page)
©OGP 9
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Table 2.10 Nom inal Design Blast Overpressures for Various Offshore Units
[8]
10 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
finished acting before the element has had time to respond. Due to inertial resistance of
the structure, most of the deformation occurs after the blast load has passed. Impulse is
an important aspect of damage-causing ability of this type of blast and may become a
controlling factor in design situations where the blast wave is of relatively short
duration.
In the quasi-static regime, the duration of the blast load is much longer than the natural
period of the structural element. In this case, the blast loading magnitude may be
considered constant while the element reaches its maximum deformation. For quasi-
static loading, the blast will cause the structure to deform while the loading is still
applied.
In the dynamic regime, the load duration is similar to the time taken for the element to
respond significantly. There is amplification of response above that which would result
from static application of the blast load.
©OGP 11
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
12 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Approximate methods are limited to energy methods and static analysis methods. The
energy method (based on principle of equating work done by load to change in strain
energy in structure) are adequate for simple structural elements and load regimes but
for more complex structural elements and load configurations, these methods become
very laborious and time consuming. They are therefore not recommended for any but
the simplest cases. Static analysis methods have been used where quasi-static blast
loads act (i.e. dynamic amplification in response is minimal). As large conservatism can
occur, these methods are generally not recommended.
Single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) methods are commonly used to model the response
of simple elements to dynamic loading. This method can only be used if the structural
system can be adequately idealised as a single-degree-of-freedom system (i.e. a real
system that is comparatively simple e.g. a single plate or beam). The SDOF model has
the ability to modify equations and parameters if a time-stepping procedure is employed
which enables a nonlinear system to be modelled. This method is most suited if the
primary requirement in determining the behaviour of a blast-loaded structure is its final
state (e.g. maximum displacement) rather than a detailed knowledge of its response
history.
Where a structure cannot be idealised as a SDOF system, a more rigorous approach is
required. This can be obtained by performing a multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
analysis using numerical techniques e.g. finite element analysis. Such analysis can be
carried out using commercially available software such as ANSYS, ABAQUS, NASTRAN,
DYNA-3D.
It should also be noted that the mechanical properties of materials are affected by the
dynamic loading induced by a blast load. In particular, those materials having definite
yield points and pronounced yielding zones show a marked variation in mechanical
properties with changes in loading rate. Yield strengths are generally higher under rapid
strain rates (as what happens under blast loads) than under slowly applied loads.
The strain rate dependency in steels is generally modelled using the Cowper-Symonds
relationship:
©OGP 13
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
where σd is the dynamic stress at a particular strain rate, σ is the static stress at a
particular strain rate, is the uniaxial plastic strain rate and D and q are constants
specific to the steel.
Typical values for D and q are as follows:
• Mild steel: D = 40 s-1, q = 5
• Stainless steel (grade 304); D = 100 s-1, q = 10
2.3 Missiles
There are two possible types of missiles/projectiles. Primary missiles result from the
rupture of pressurised equipment such as pressure vessels or failure of rotating
machinery (e.g. gas turbines and pumps). Secondary missiles arise from the passage of
a blast wave which imparts energy to objects in its path. These objects could be small
tools, loose debris and other structures disrupted by the explosion.
Various models for the calculation of the missile velocity and range of missiles are
given in [10] and [11]. However, the models provide no information on the distribution of
mass, velocity or range of fragments to be expected.
Baker et al. ([12],[13]) compiled data on the number and distribution of fragments for 25
accidental bursts as shown in Table 2.12. As the data on most of the events considered
were limited, it was necessary to group similar events into six groups in order to yield
an adequate base for useful statistical analysis. The range for the source energy was
calculated based on the assumption that the total internal energy E of the vessel
contents is translated into fragment kinetic energy.
Baker also performed statistical analysis on each of the groups to yield estimates of
fragment-range distributions and fragment mass distributions as illustrated in Figure
2.3. It should, however, be noted that a number of problems still exist with regard to the
determination of missile loading, namely [9]:
• Fraction of explosion energy which contributes to fragment generation is unclear
• Methods do not exist to predict even the order of magnitude of the number of
fragments produced. Effect of parameters such as material, wall thickness and initial
pressure are not known.
14 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
©OGP 15
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Figure 2.3: Fragm ent range distribution from som e accidental events [10]:
(a) event groups 1 and 2, and (b) event groups 3-6 (see Table 2.12 for event
groups)
16 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
3.2 Uncertainties
The main area of uncertainty relate to the numerical modelling of plant/structure under
dynamic loads such as blast loading. The complexity of the problem requires
simplifying assumptions regarding the:
• Structural model and boundary conditions
• Loading characteristics
• Geometric nonlinearity
• Material nonlinearity
Comprehensive data on material behaviour at elevated temperatures and under dynamic
loading are not available.
©OGP 17
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
Table 4.1 Data sources for com m only used critical tem peratures given in
Table 2.2 [2]
18 ©OGP
RADD – Vulnerability of plant/structure
6.0 References
6.1 References for Sections 2.0 to 4.0
[1] Medonos S, 2003. Improvement of Rule Sets for Quantitative Risk Assessment in
Various Industrial Sectors, Safety and Reliability, Proc. ESREL 2003 Conf., Vol. 2,
A.A. Balkema Publishers, ISBN 5809 596 7.
[2] UKOOA/HSE, 2007. Fire and Explosion Guidance, Issue 1.
[3] Steel Construction Institute, 2001. Elevated temperature and high strain rate
properties of offshore steels, Offshore Technology Report OTO 2001 020, Sudbury,
Suffolk: HSE Books. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2001/oto01020.pdf.
[4] Fire safety engineering. Structural response and fire spread beyond the enclosure of
origin, BS ISO/TR 13387-6:1999, ISBN 0 580 34037 6.
[5] NORSOK N-004 Design of Steel Structures, N-004, Rev.1, December 1998.
[6] Clancey V J, 1972. Diagnostic features of explosion damage, 6th Intl. Meeting on
Forensic Sciences, Edinburgh, Scotland.
[7] Stephens M M, 1970. Minimising damage to refineries from nuclear attack, natural or
other disasters, Office of Oil and Gas, US Department of the Interior.
[8] DNV, 2005. DNV OS-A101, Safety Principles and Arrangements, DNV Offshore
Standard.
[9] Natabelle Technology Ltd., 1999. Explosion Loading on Topsides Equipment, Part 1,
Treatment of Explosion Loads, Response Analysis and Design, Offshore Technology
Report OTO 1999 046, Sudbury, Suffolk: HSE Books.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/1999/oto99046.pdf.
[10] CCPS, 1994. Guidelines for evaluating the characteristics of vapor cloud explosions,
flash fires and BLEVEs, New York: AIChE.
[11] Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Hazard Identification, Assessment and
Control, 3rd ed., Mannan S (Ed.), 2004.
[12] Baker W E, Kulesz J J, Ricker R E, Westine P S, Parr V B, Vargas L M, and Mosely
P K, 1978. Workbook for Estimating the Effects of Accidental Explosion in Propellant
Handling Systems. NASA Contractors Report 3023, Contract NAS3-20497. NASA
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
[13] Baker W E, Cox P A, Westine P S, Kulesz J J, and Strehlow R A, 1983. Explosion
Hazards and Evaluation, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
[14] Steel Construction Institute, 2005. Protection of Piping Systems subject to Fires and
Explosions, Technical Note 8.
©OGP 19
For further information and publications,
please visit our website at
www.ogp.org.uk
209-215 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NL
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7633 0272
Fax: +44 (0)20 7633 2350
165 Bd du Souverain
4th Floor
B-1160 Brussels, Belgium
Telephone: +32 (0)2 566 9150
Fax: +32 (0)2 566 9159