Proceedings of the Sixteenth (2006) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

San Francisco, California, USA, May 28-June 2, 2006

Copyright © 2006 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-66-4 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Reliability of Explosion Resistant Design

Sirous F. Yasseri
Kellogg Brown & Root
Leatherhead, Surrey, UK

“true” or "absolute" probability-of-failure values but can provide

ABSTRACT
In common deterministic design procedures for explosion
loading design parameters are set rather arbitrarily. For
explosion resistant designs, it is not immediately obvious how
such choices relate to the required reliability level for the
structural performance. In fact the safety factor for explosion-
resistant structure designed according to the current practice is
unknown. The purpose of the research effort leading to this
paper was to develop, test, and illustrate procedures that can be
used by structural engineers to assign conditional probabilities
of failure to structural elements as functions of explosion
pressure.
KEY WORDS: Blast; Reliability; failure; risk; Explosion.
consistent measures of relative reliability when reasonable
assumptions are employed. Such comparative measures can be
used to indicate, for example, which alternative design may be
more reliable, provided that they are strictly comparable. They
also can be used to determine which of two failure modes
(rupture and deformation) governs the reliability of a particular
element.
Designs developed using whatever reliability methods will still
retain some inherent uncertainty in the absolute sense.
Nevertheless, they also contain more information than
deterministic approaches to the same problem. The use of a
consistent probabilistic framework, with personal judgment
checks for reasonableness, should have the advantage and
appeal of consistency when compared to the alternative method
of trying to identify a single explosion level at which an element
(e.g. a blast wall) changes from being reliable to unreliable.

INTRODUCTION
In designing structures to resist explosion loading, decisions are
made under a great deal of uncertainty that may lead to a finite
risk of exceeding limit states of the structures. Classically, in
order to minimize the risks, conventional factors of safety based
on deterministic analyses are commonly used in the design.
In common deterministic design procedures for explosion
loading design parameters are set rather arbitrarily. Thus, for
explosion resistant designs [SCI], it is not immediately obvious
how such choices relate to the required reliability level for the
structural performance. In this study displacement and rupture
limit states are used for measuring performance.
The application of probabilistic analysis in structural
engineering is still an emerging technology. Full experience
with such procedures remains to be gained. The reliability
methods are too complex for any reasonable size structure. The
methods described herein should not be expected to provide
FAILURE MODES
In a multi-level explosion resistant design [Yasseri and
Menhennett] a designer may pursue several goals. For instance
for explosion with higher frequency of occurrence it may be
desirable to ensure the continuity of operation in addition to the
life safety, and for a higher overpressure, but less frequent
explosion, the goal is the life safety only. Thus the basic aim for
explosion resistant design is to contain the explosion, limit the
damage and finally to prevent progressive/catastrophic collapse.
Therefore, depending on the goal, some level of inelastic
deformation may be tolerated, provided rupture or the total loss
is not imminent. Thus, the acceptable behavior very much
depends on the targeted goals.
In general, the design requirements to satisfy such goals are:
Deformations should be limited so that the target goals are

403
Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri Page 1
achieved. The acceptable transient and permanent deformation
is obviously dependent on design goals (in a multi-level design)
and on the layout and proximity of other structures so that vital
pipework and equipment can function (albeit in some damaged
state) and escalation is also avoided.
Rupture of large parts of the structure is not acceptable, since it
could lead to progressive collapse. This is only relevant to the
higher level explosion when designing in a multi-level design
format. For lower level of explosion only minimal damage is
allowed. The maximum total plastic strains are used to judge
rupture. Thus, the resulting strains associated with acceptable
displacements should not cause brittle failure or ductile tearing
[UMIST and TWI]. However, rupture may occur before the
allowable displacement is exceeded.
For topside structures with Passive Fire Protection (PFP), if the
insulation is required to be in-place after the explosion, then a
lower limit of deformation or strain needs to be allowed so to
prevent large scale loss of PFP. Such limits should be
ascertained by test to check the de-bonding effect of large
deformations and strains on a PFP material. Past experience
shows that for strains up to 5%, the adhesion of the epoxy-based
fire proofing material is not badly affected. For fire proofing
which is wrapped around the structural members, larger
deformations and strains may be acceptable.
THE CONDITIONAL PROBABLITY OF FAILURE
For an existing structure subjected to an explosion, the
probability of failure Pf can be expressed as a function of the
explosion overpressure and other factors including duration,
structural strength, weld strength & quality, general
workmanship, etc. This study will focus on developing the
conditional probability of failure function for the explosion
overpressure, which will be constructed using engineering
estimates of the probability functions or moments of the other
relevant variables.
The conditional probability of failure can be written as:
Pf = P( failure OP ) = f (OP, X 1 , X 2 ,⋅ ⋅ ⋅, X n ) (1)
In the above expression, the first term (denoting probability of
failure) will be used as a shorthand version of the second term.
In the second term, the symbol “|” is read given and the variable
OP is the Overpressure. In the third term, the random variables
X 1 through X n denote relevant parameters such as material
strength, explosion duration, mass, damping, section sizes etc.
Equation (1) can be restated as follows: “The probability of
failure, given an overpressure, is a function of the overpressure,
its duration and other random variables.”
RELIABILIY INDEX
In the capacity-demand model, the probability of failure or
unsatisfactory performance is defined as the probability that the
demand on a system or component exceeds the capacity of the
Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri
system or component. The capacity and demand can be
combined into a single function (the performance function), and
the event that the capacity equals the demand taken as the limit
state. Reliability is the probability that the limit state will not be
reached or crossed.
The performance measure is taken as the displacement
normalized with acceptable level of displacement. Equivalent
performance functions and limit states can be defined using
other measures, such as the plastic hinge rotation or the
maximum plastic strain. However, deformation and the plastic
strains are strongly correlated, namely both maximize at the
same time.
The likelihood that a structure will meet or exceed a specified
level of damage for a given level of overpressure is:
Condional Probablity of Failure = P[R > LS | IM = y ] (2)
where R is the response measure of the system response or the
demand of explosion on the structure, LS is the limit state or
damage level, IM the explosion intensity measure and y is the
realization of the chosen explosion intensity measure. This
probability of failure is represented by:
⎡ E (R ) ⎤
Pf = P ⎢ ≥ 1⎥ (3)
⎣ E (C ) ⎦
where Pf the probability of is exceeding a specific damage-
state, E (R ) is the expectation of explosion demand on the
structure and E (C ) is the structural capacity or damage state.
Assuming a lognormal distribution
⎡ ⎤
ln (E (R ) E (C )) ⎥
Pf = Φ ⎢ = Φ(Z ) (4)
⎢ V 2
+ V 2 ⎥
⎣ R C ⎦
Here E (C ) is the median value of the structural capacity defined
for the damage state, Vc is the dispersion or lognormal standard
deviation of the structural capacity, E (R ) is the explosion
demand as a function of a chosen explosion intensity parameter,
VR is the logarithmic standard deviation for the demand and
Φ (∗) is the standard normal distribution function.
Generally, maximum deformation is the controlling failure
mode, and it should not exceed a specified value. There are
cases where extensive deformations can be tolerated. In a
deterministic non-linear dynamic analysis, output is in the form
of deformation, as well as other parameter defining the state of
the structure. In this work the maximum deformation
experienced by the system is used as a measure of performance
and it is normalized using the maximum acceptable
deformation, and this ratio is termed R . According to our
definition R is acting as a utilization ratio, and E (C ) act as the
maximum available capacity with a maximum value of 1. In this
study we use 0.85 so that the probability of failure is reduced.
404 Page 2
The reliability index is then determined from R and VR
obtained from multiple runs as described later in this paper.
The reliability index β is a measure of the reliability of an
engineering system that reflects both the mechanics of the
problem and the uncertainty in the input variables. This index
provides a measure of comparative reliability without having to
assume or determine the shape of the probability distribution
necessary to calculate an exact value of the probability of
failure. The reliability index is defined in terms of the expected
value and standard deviation of the performance function, and
permits comparison of reliability among different structures or
modes of performance without having to calculate absolute
probability values.
Table 1: Typical Target reliability Indices
Target Reliability Indices
Expected Beta Probability of Failure
Performance Level
High 5 3.0E-7
Good 4 3.0E-5
Average 3 1.0E-3
Below average 2.5 6.0E-3
Poor 2.0 2.3E-2
Unsatisfactory 1.5 7.0E-2
Hazardous 1.0 1.6E-1
The probability of failure associated with the reliability index is
a probability per structure; it has no time-frequency basis. Once
a structure is constructed or loaded as modeled, it either
performs satisfactorily or not. Nevertheless, the β value
calculated for an existing structure provides a rational
comparative measure.
Reliability indices are a relative measure of the current
condition and provide a qualitative estimate of the expected
performance. Structures with relatively high reliability indices
will be expected to perform their function well. Structures with
low reliability indices will be expected to perform poorly and
present major rehabilitation problems. The target reliability
values noted in Table 1 give a basis for comparison.
STEPS IN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
A reliability analysis includes the following steps:
1. A deterministic model (e.g., an analysis procedure to
determine response of a structure to the explosion demand). In
this paper the response to explosions is calculated using a non-
linear time domain direct integration dynamic finite element
analysis [ABAQUS].
2. Important variables considered to have sufficient
inherent uncertainty are taken as random variables and
characterized by their expected values, standard deviations-
correlations are neglected in this paper. In concept, every
variable in an analysis can be modeled as a random variable as
Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri
most properties and parameters have some inherent variability
and uncertainty. However, a few specific random variables will
usually dominate the analysis. Including additional random
variables may unnecessarily increase in computational effort
without significantly improving results. When in doubt, a few
analyses with and without certain random variables will quickly
illustrate which are significant, as will the examination of
variance terms in a Taylor's series analysis. For explosion-
resistant design, significant random variables typically include
material strengths, structural dimension, mass distribution, load
distribution, support conditions.
3. A performance measure, or a limit state,
E (R ) / E (C ) ≥ 1.0 (where E (R ) is e.g. the maximum tolerable
deformation, or a given ductility factor μ , maximum tolerable
plastic strain etc.).
4. The expected value and standard deviation of the
performance function are next calculated. In concept, this
involves integrating the performance function over the
probability density functions of the random variables. In
practice, approximate values are obtained using the expected
value, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients of the
random variables in the Taylor's series method or the point
estimate method.
5. The reliability index β is calculated from the expected
and standard deviation of the performance function. The
reliability index is a measure of the distance between the
expected value of ln(E ( R) ) and the limit state ln (E(C ) .
6. If a probability of failure value is desired, a distribution
is assumed and P( f ) is calculated.
INTEGRATION OF PERFORMANCE FUNCTION
For step 4 the moments of the performance function are
estimated from the moments of the random variables. Methods
such as direct integration, Taylor’s series, point estimate
methods, and Monte Carlo Simulation [Vose] can be used to
determine the mean and standard deviation of the performance
function. In direct integration, the mean value of the function is
obtained by integrating over the probability density function of
the random variables [Melchers].
In order to estimate the variability of design results in terms of
their mean and standard deviations, the First Order Second
Moment (FOSM) method that involves approximation based on
Taylor expansion are employed in this paper.
E (R) can be expressed as:
E [R ] = R(E [X 1 ], E [X 2 ],⋅ ⋅ ⋅, E [X n ])
(5)
where X i (i = 1,2,3...) represents the random variables such as
material yield strength, post yield hardening, masses and their
distribution and damping and so on.
If Taylor series expansion for a performance function of several
random variables, E (R ) , is performed about the mean values of
the random variables and only first order terms are retained,
approximate variance of the function can be expressed as:
405 Page 3
 2
⎞ ⎛ ∂R duration determined using CFD software. This actual shape is
⎛ ∂R ⎞ 2 ∂R
Var [R ] = ∑ ⎜
⎜ ∂X
⎝ i
⎟ σX +2
⎟
⎠
i ∑ ⎠
⎜
⎟ρ X , X σ X σ X
×
⎜ ∂X i ∂X j
⎟ i j i
⎝
j
approximated by an isosceles triangle having the same positive
peak value and area equal to the positive portion of the pulse.
(6) For engineering purposes such an idealization gives adequate
When the random variables in function R are assumed accuracy.
uncorrelated, Equation (6) can be presented in a simpler form as
follows:
2
⎛ ∂R ⎞ 2
Var [R ] = ∑ ⎜
⎝ i⎠
⎟
⎜ ∂X ⎟ σ X i (7)

It is quite common in engineering to encounter non-closed form

of the performance functions. When R is a non-closed form
function, the partial derivatives of R can be estimated
numerically using the finite difference method, i.e.:
∂R R( X i + ) − R ( X i − )
≈ (8)
∂X i X i+ − X i−
where X i − and X i + represents the random variable X i taken
at some increment above and below its expected values (e.g.
±1σ or ±2σ ). Theoretically, an extremely small increment
gives the most accurate value of the derivative at the expected
value. This FOSM method allows the engineer to see the Figure 1: A typical gaseous explosion pulse
contribution of each random variable to the total uncertain in the
function R .
2
⎛ R( X i + ) − R ( X i − ) ⎞
n
Var [R ] ≈ ∑
i =1
⎜⎜
⎝ 2
⎟⎟
⎠
(9)
Mean duration versus overpressure

200
Mean duration (ms)

CHARACTERIZING UNCERTAINTY 150

100
The capacity-demand model, described earlier requires that the t = 190e
-0.205(OP)
engineer assign values for the probabilistic moments of the 50
random variables considered in analyses. This section reviews
0
information regarding the observed variability of design
0 2 4 6 8 10
parameters which can be used as a guide when characterizing
Overpressure (barg)
random variables for the analysis.

Any parameter used in an analysis can be modeled as a random

variable, and any variables that are expected to contribute
uncertainty regarding the expected performance of the structure
or system should be so modeled. Typically these include
material strength, explosion duration and mass. The first-order
second moment (FOSM) approach used herein, random
variables are quantified by their expected values, standard
deviations, and correlation coefficients, commonly referred to as
probabilistic moments.
DESCRIBING EXPLOSION LOADSD: If the distribution of
failure probability is required, then a suite of explosion time-
histories must be employed. This suite of time-histories must be
assembled from explosion studies of the installation. Explosion
loading should be defined in terms of variation of pressure with
respect to time. Two parameters are needed to define the shape,
i.e. pressure and its duration. Many parameters influence the
duration. Computational fluid mechanics (CFD) simulations
show a lot of scatter. Figure 1 shows a plot of pressure versus
Figure 2: mean value of explosion duration
Figure 2 shows the mean value of duration of explosion loads as
a function of the overpressure [Yasseri and Menhennett]. This
result was obtained from a collection of design explosion for a
number of installations. Each design data point is an average
made up from a number of CFD simulations. For this work the
overpressure was used to group the data. Duration for each
pressure level was then averaged and rounded and used for the
regression analysis purpose. The scatter for each pressure level
is generally higher for high pressure and vice versa. The average
coefficient of variation across all pressure was determined to be
0.15. The explosion duration used in this work was mean plus
one standard deviation.
MATERIAL MODELING: Unlike carbon steel, stainless steel
does not have a well defined yield stress. For this reason 0.2%
and 1.0% strains are used to define the characteristics of
stainless steels.
Ramberg-Osgood power law is commonly used to describe

Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri 406 Page 4

stress-strain relationship as follows:
Stress (Mpa) Definition of true stress-strain
n
σ ⎛ σ ⎞ σ p1.0 , ε 1.0 = 0.01 + σ p1.0 E
ε = + 0.002⎜ ⎟ (10) σ p1.0 , ε 1.0 = 0.01 + σ p1.0 E
E ⎜ σ p 0.2 ⎟ 1000
⎝ ⎠
Definition of proof strength 800
Stress (Mpa)
600 σ p 0.2 , ε 0.2 = 0.002 + σ p 0.2 E
σ p 0.2 σ p1.0
600 400 σ 0 = 0.5 R p 0.2 , ε 0 = σ 0 E
500 200 Strain
400
σ0
0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.25
300
Figure 4: True stress-strain curve used fro ASF2304 in this
200 E study.
100 ε 0.2 ε1.0 Strain
Table 3: Plate thickness tolerance
Nominal thickness Thickness Tolerance (mm)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1 4 1.6 1.8 (mm)
Figure 3: Proof strength definition. 1.5-2.4 ± 0.1
2.5-3.4 ± 0.12
where σ p 0.2 is the proof strength at 0.2% proof strain, which is 3.5-4.4 ± 0.14
4.5-6.35 ± 0.15
the proportionality limit, n is a non-dimensional constant.
Figure 3 shows the proof strength for the stainless steel using
engineering definition of stress and strain. Notations used are as The tensile strength of stainless steels is sensitive to the loading
follows: rate. A convenient representation of the dynamic yield (proof)
stress as a function of the plastic strain rate for SAF2304
σ 0 Proportionality limit giving rise to ε 0 = σ 0 E assumed to stainless steel is given below [Cowper and Symond equation]
be σ 0 = 0.5σ p 0.2 [ ]
σ dp 0.2 = 0.96σ p 0.2 1 + (ε& D )1 ρ (12)
ε m Strain corresponding to the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) Where D = 300 and ρ = 4 [ABAQUS]
σ m Ultimate tensile strength (UTS)
Transient and final deflection are significantly affected by the
strain rate effect, such deformations are reduced by as much
Table 2: Avesta SAF 2304 stainless steel [Czujko et al] half. Table 3 gives the plate thickness tolerances for material
used in this study.
For 4 to R p 0.2 R p1.0 Rm εm
10 mm DAMPING: For each natural frequency of the system, ω r , the
thick effective damping ratio is:
plate ζ r = 0.5(α ω r + βω r ) r = 1,2,.., N (13)
Mean 536.6 592.3 719.6 24.3
Standard 25.5 28.6 20.8 2.8 (N is the number of mode shapes)
deviation By choosing the damping ratio ζ r for two modes the two
parameters α and β can be found. It is suggested that the ratio
Results of uniaxial tensile tests are presented in one of two between two frequencies should be around 10, so that the lower
forms, i.e. the engineering (nominal) definitions, or by their true modes are not over-damped.
values. Table 2 gives results for SAF2304 [Czujko et al].
Data needed for the dynamic non-linear analysis is the true Mass proportional damping dominates when the frequency is
stress and strain. Figure 4 shows the definition of true stress- low, and stiffness proportional damping dominates when the
strain. The following expressions can be used to determine the frequency is high. When stiffness damping is used in nonlinear
true values from the nominal data: dynamics, the most straightforward implementation would be to
σ = σ n (1 + ε n ) make the damping proportional to the tangent stiffness.
, (11)
ε = ln(1 + ε n ) However, this may cause numerical difficulties since the tangent
Here, subscript n indicates the nominal value. stiffness may develop negative eigenvalues during deformation,
producing negative damping, thereby creating energy.

Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri 407 Page 5

Therefore, most software packages use the elastic stiffness and minus one standard deviation, while other three variables
matrix to define the damping matrix. are kept at their expected values. Results obtained from these
analyses are used to calculate the total variance related to the
CASE STUDY Utilization Ratio. For instance:
⎛ R( X i + ) − R( X i − ) ⎞
2 2
⎛ 2.741667 − 1 ⎞
Figure 5 shows a blast wall installed on a North Sea installation. Var [R ] ≈ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ = 0.68751736
This blast wall was supplied as 1.2 bar of 150milli-seconds ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
duration with equal rise and fall. Table 4 gives further data for
this blast wall.
Table4: Design parameters
Wall Geometry:
Profile width (pitch) 990 mm
Profile depth (centerline to centerline) 340 mm
Flange width (between work points) 350 mm
Wall thickness 6 mm
Angle of webs to horizontal 70.6 deg
Corner internal bend radius 15 mm
Span (including height of supports) 6500 mm
Thickness of bottom and top plates 6 mm
Material: (Avesta SAF 2304)
Density 7850 kg/m3
Minimum Yield strength 440 N/mm2
Young’s modulus 200000 N/mm2
Loading:
Nominal design Pressure 1200 mbar
Positive phase impulse with equal rise and fall of 75 msec
Negative phase impulse time 0 msec
Impulse period (triangular) 150 msec
Supports:
Overall height of connection from deck/roof to wall joint
225 mm
Bottom angle thickness 18 mm
Thickness of top angle 20 mm
Top/Bottom angle material Carbon steel/ 355D
Figure 6: The finite element model
Mass of insulation: None( wall is H 0 rated )

Four random variables are considered, the material strength,
blast duration, damping and the plate thickness. The assigned
probabilistic moments for these variables are given in Table 4.
The maximum acceptable deformation anywhere on the wall is
120 mm.
A finite element model of the wall was built for ABAQUS.
Parameters which influence the response are listed in table 5. As
Table 5 indicates four parameters were selected as the random
variable, thus for each level of blast pressure nine analyses were
performed.
For the first analysis (RUN1), the four random variables are
taken at their expected values. The utilization factor is 1.375
(165/120).
Results for ABAQUS non-linear dynamic analyses for 1.4-bar
overpressure are summarized in Table 5.
For the second, third and fourth analyses, one variable is taken
at a time and its value is assumed to be the expected value plus
When the variance components are summed, the total variance
will be 1.09546875. Taking the square root of the variance gives
the standard deviation of 1.046646.
The Utilization Ratio is assumed to be log-normally distributed
random variable with the expected vale (first moment)
E (R ) = 1.375 and σ R = 1.046646 . Using the properties of the
lognormal distribution, the equivalent normally distributed
random variable has the following parameters:
1
E (ln R ) = ln E [R ] − σ ln2 R = 0.089924
2
and
σ ln R = ln[1 + V R2 ] = 0.761197
The maximum allowable E(C) is assumed to be 0.85.

Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri 408 Page 6

 ln(E (R ) E (C )) - 0.16252 − 0.089924 carrying margin for each essential structure and plant
β= = = -0.3734
VR2 + VC2 (0.761197 )2 + (0.0)2 item. These margins are reduced to a common basis
by considering factors such as the degree of
For this value, the cumulative distribution conservatism inherent in the analysis, whether failure
function F (β ) = 0.354424 , which represents the probability that
of a given plant item would have major consequences
the UR is below the critical value. The probability that the UR is
for the associated safety function, and so on. The risk
above the critical value is
value associated with the loss of the associated safety
P f = 1 − F (β ) = 1 − 0.354424 = 0.645576 function, and hence the value of the averted risk
resulting from implementation of a given
Table 5: Summary of inputs and results for the case study modification can be estimated. Comparison of the
(1.4 bar Case) modification costs with the averted risk values can be
used as the basis for concluding whether the risk to
Run
No.
Strength
N/M^2
Damping
% critical
Duration
(s)
Thickness
(mm)
Displacement.
(mm)
R=actual disp../
acceptable (120 mm)
Variance
component
the plant, in its current state, is ALARP.
1 Mean 3 142.6 6 165 1.375
2 Mean-2SD 3 142.6 6 273 2.275
3 Mean+2SD 3 142.6 6 120 1 0.40640625
4
5
Mean
Mean
2
4
142.6
142.6
6
6
329
130
2.741667
1.083333 0.68751736
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
6 Mean 3 121.21 6 152 1.266667
7 Mean 3 164.00 6 160 1.333333 0.00111111
8 Mean 3 142.6 5.85 155 1.291667 The author would like to acknowledge Dr. Bijan Djahansouzi for
9 Mean 3 142.6 6.15 150 1.25 0.00043403
Total 1.09546875 his many helpful comments. The views of the author do not
E(ln R)= 0.089924 Z= -0.3734
purport to reflect the position of his employer or the reviewer.
E(R)= 1.375
Var(R)= 1.095469 Sigma(ln(R)) 0.676061
Sigma(R)= 1.046646
V(R)= 0.761197 Pr(f)= F(z)= 0.354424
Ln(R(crit))= -0.16252 REFERENCES
R(critical)= 0.85 Pf=1-F(z)= 0.645576

Pr(failure)= 0.645576 ABAQUS/Standard Version 6.4, (2004), ABAQUS Inc., Rhode

These analyses were repeated for a number of overpressures Island, USA
from 0.2 to 1.6-bar. The resulting conditional probability of Czujko, J, Johansessen, K., and Groth, H. L, (1997), “Material
failure function is shown in Figure 7. Characteristics and Strain Rate Effects in Duplex Stainless
Steel,”, Proceedings of World Duplex 97, Conference and
Expo., Maastricht, The Nederland, 21-23-Oct. 1997, paper
114.
Conditional probability of wall failure as a function of explosion
overpressure Hwang, H., H. (1990). "Probabilistic Damage Analysis of
structures," ASCE journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 116,
1.00
No. 7, pp1992-2007.
0.80
Melchers, R, Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, John
Pr (Failure)

0.60
0.40
Wiley, 1999.
0.20
Morgan, G.M., and Henrion, M., Uncertainty-A Guide to
0.00
Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York 1990.
Overpressure (bar) SCI, Guidance Note
UMIST and TWI, The Effects of Dynamic Loading on Structural
Figure 7: Conditional probability of failure Integrity Assessments, HSE Research Report 208, 2004.
Vose, D, Quantitative Risk Analysis: Guide to Monte Carlo
Simulation Modeling, John Wiley, 1999.
Yasseri, S. and Menhennett, P., “A methodology for
Performance-Based Explosion Resistant Design”, ERA Major
CONCLUSIONS Accident Offshore 2003, paper 1.3.
Yasseri, S. “Probabilistic Damage Analysis of Offshore
The conditional probability of failure was determined Installations”, 2nd ASRANet International Colloquium, Spain,
for a given level of explosion. This curve can be used June 2004.
to carry out detailed ALARP assessments of essential Yasseri, S. and Prager, J, “Explosion Recurrence Modeling”,
OMAE 2005, Paper 51048, Vancouver, Canada.
plant items, and structures that provide protection
against explosion-induced loss of essential safety
functionality. This approach identifies the load

Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri 409 Page 7

 470

8 thk

200x150x18R
SA

225 50

315

Figure 5: Details of blast wall used in this case study

Paper No. 2006- JSC- 138 Yasseri 410 Page 8