Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7734/COSEIK.2021.34.6.355

Improvement of Charge Strength Guideline for Multi-Energy Method by Comparing Vapor Cloud Explosion Cases  

Lee, Seung-Hoon (Department of Architecture, Konkuk University)
Kim, Han-Soo (Department of Architecture, Konkuk University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea / v.34, no.6, 2021 , pp. 355-362 More about this Journal
Abstract
Various blast pressure calculation methods have been developed for predicting the explosion pressure of vapor cloud explosions. Empirical methods include the TNT equivalent method, and multi-energy method. The multi-energy method uses a charge strength that considers environmental factors. Although the Kinsella guideline was provided to determine the charge strength, there are limitations such as guidelines related to ignition sources. In this study, we proposed an improved charge strength guideline, by subdividing the ignition source intensity and expanding the type classification through literature analysis. To verify the improved charge strength guideline, and to compare it with the result obtained using the Kinsella guideline, four vapor cloud explosion cases which could be used to estimate the actual blast pressure were investigated. As a result, it was confirmed that the Kinsella guidelines showed an inaccurate, that is, wider pressure than the actual estimated blast pressure. However, the improved charge strength guideline enabled the selection of the intensity of the ignition source, and more subdivided types through the expansion of classification, hence it was possible to calculate the blast pressure relatively close to that of the actual case.
Keywords
vapor cloud explosion; blast pressure; TNT-equivalent method; multi-energy method; guideline;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 FAIR (2005) Isomerization Unit Explosion Final Report Texas, Fatal Accident Investigation Report, USA, p.192.
2 HSE (1998) GAME: Development of Guidance for the Application of the Multi-Energy Method, TNO, Health and Safety Executive, p.124.
3 Lee, S.H., Kim, H.S. (2021) Study on the Calculation of the Blast Pressure of Vapor Cloud Explosions by Analyzing Plant Explosion Cases, J. Comput. Struct. Eng. Inst. Korea, 34(1), pp.1~8.   DOI
4 Alonso, F.D., Ferradas, E.G., Perez, J.F.S., Aznar, A.M., Gimeno, J.R. (2006) Characteristic Overpressure-Impulse-Distance Curves for Vapour Cloud Explosions Using the TNO Multi-Energy Model, J. Haz. Mater., 137(2), pp.734~741.   DOI
5 MARSH (2016) The 100 Largest Losses 1974-2015, Marsh Ltd., UK, p.44.
6 Oran, E.S., Chamberlain, G., Pekalski, A. (2020) Mechanisms and Occurrence of Detonations in Vapor Cloud Explosions, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 77, pp.1~37.
7 Park, D.J., Lee, Y.S. (2009) A Comparison on Predictive Models of Gas Explosion, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26(2), pp.313~323.   DOI
8 Roberts, M.W., Crowley, W.K. (2004) Evaluation of Flammability Hazards in Non-nuclear Safety Analysis, In Proc., EFCOG, Las Vegas: EFCG.
9 ASCE (2010) Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical Facilities, American Society of Civil Engineers, Virginia, p.300.
10 Assael, M.J., Kakosimos, K.E. (2010) Fires, Explosions and Toxic Gas Dispersions, CRC press, New York, p.346.
11 Chamberlain, G., Pekalski, A., Oran, E.S. (2019) Mechanisms and Occurrence of Detonations in Vapor Cloud Explosions-Supplementary Material, Waverton Consultancy Ltd., UK, p.75.
12 CSB (2007) Investigation Report Refinery Explosion and Fire, BP Texas, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, p.341.
13 Kinsella, K.G. (1993) A Rapid Assessment Methodology for the Prediction of Vapour Cloud Explosion Overpressure, Int. Conf. and Exhibition on Safety, Health and Loss Prev. in the Oil, Chemical and Process Industries, Singapore.
14 Van den Berg, A.C. (1985) The Multi-Energy Method: A Framework for Vapour Cloud Explosion Blast Prediction, J. Haz. Mater.,12(1), pp.1~10.   DOI
15 Ree, S.H., Kang, T., Lee, H.R., Shin, M.S. (2020) Empirical Gas Explosion Models for Onshore Plant Structure: Review and Comparative Analysis, J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 34(4), pp.1~10.
16 RR226 (2004) Development of a Method for the Determination of on-site Ignition Probabilities, Health and Safety Executive, p.192.
17 Sadee, C., Samuels, D.E., O'Brien, T.P. (1977) The Characteristics of the Explosion of Cyclohexane at the NYPRO (UK) Flixborough Plant 1st June 1974, J. Occup. Accid., 1(3), pp.203~235.   DOI
18 Wingerden, K., Salvesen, H.-C., Perbal, R. (1995) Simulation of an Accidental Vapor Cloud Explosion, Proc. Safety Progress, 14(3), pp.173~181.   DOI
19 MoSA (1976) Report on the Explosion at DSM in Beek, Dutch Ministry of Social Affair, Netherland.
20 Zhang, Q., Li, D. (2017) Comparison of the Explosion Characteristics of Hydrogen, Propane, and Methane Clouds at the Stoichiometric Concentrations, Inter. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42(21), pp.14794~14808.   DOI
21 Baker, Q.A., Tang, M.J., Scheier, E.A., Silva, G.J. (1996) Vapor Cloud Explosion Analysis, Proc. Safety Progress, 15(2), pp.106~109.   DOI
22 RR1113 (2017) Review of Vapour Cloud Explosion Incidents, Health and Safety Executive, p.326.
23 CCPS (1994) Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristic of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires, and BLEVEs, CCPS, New York, p.394.
24 Sari, A. (2011) Comparison of TNO Multienergy and Baker-Strehlow-Tang Models, Proc. Safety Progress, 30(1), pp.23~26.   DOI
25 Chen, C., Khakzad, N., Reniers, G. (2020) Dynamic Vulnerability Assessment of Process Plants with Respect to Vapor Cloud Explosions, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 200(2):106934, pp.1~15.
26 CPR14E (2005) Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects, TNO, Netherlands, p.870.