Hole Size Selection

This section discusses ABS Consultings experiences regarding the selection of flammable vapor
release scenarios as part of siting studies for members of the petroleum and chemical industry.
In particular, this section discusses a critical part of scenario development, that being the
selection of hole sizes for flammable material releases as part of a Vapor Cloud Explosion
(VCE) Modeling effort. The experiences have been gained by directly performing siting studies,
through discussions with others in industry, through attending and presenting at industry
symposia, and through working on industry technical groups such as CCPS and API. Discussed
first is a survey of information in the open literature regarding selection of hole sizes. Discussed
second is ABS Consultings specific experience working with industry. A conclusion is
provided.

There is some published information on selection of hole size for flammable releases used for
VCE modeling. That information is summarized below.
World Bank Technical Paper No. 55, "Techniques for Addressing Industrial
Hazards," Washington, D.C., 1988. This document provides criteria for
determining leak sizes in Section 3. That guidance is to use either full bore
rupture (100% of the pipe) or 20% of the pipe diameter for pipe breaks.
Additional guidance is given for other specific equipment leaks that tend to mirror
the same guidance given for pipe breaks. World Bank does not provide guidance
on when to use 100% vs 20% pipe diameter, but leave it up to the analyst to
decide. ABS Consulting has interpreted this to mean the 100% would apply to
small diameter pipes while the 20% applies to large diameter pipes. ABS
Consulting has chosen to draw the line between small and large diameter at 4
inches, partly based on the AIChE reference to follow. The other basis for this
distinction between small and large diameter pipes is by examining the 20% area
rule for various pipe sizes. Table 1 below shows the calculated 20% area and
equivalent hole size of this leak for various pipe sizes. This shows that using a 2
inch hole diameter would cover pipes up to 4.5 inches in diameter using the 20%
area rule.
Table 1. Pipe Diameter vs Hole Size
Pipe Diameter 20% Area of Diameter for 20%
(inch) Pipe (in2) Area Hole (inch)
1 0.16 0.4
2 0.63 0.9
3 1.41 1.3
4 2.51 1.8
4.5 3.18 2.0
5 3.93 2.2
6 5.65 2.7

American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), "Dow's Chemical Exposure

Index Guide," First Edition, New York, 1994. That document recommends 20%
of the cross sectional area be used as the hole for pipes greater than 4 inch in
diameter; a full bore rupture (100%) be used as the hole for pipes 2 inch diameter
or less; and a 2 inch diameter hole for pipes between 2 and 4 inches.
Chemical Center for Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Consequence
Analysis of Chemical Releases, New York, 1999. This book includes a
discussion of hole size for pipes. It states that no consensus is currently available
for hole size selection, but suggests the following methodologies as options which
are paraphrased or quoted below from that book.
World Bank paper values of 20% and 100%.
Some analysts use 2 inch and 4 inch holes, regardless of pipe size.
Some analysts use a range of hole sizes from small to large, such as 0.2, 1,
4, and 6 inches for full bore ruptures for pipes less than 6 inches in
diameter.
Some analysts use more detailed procedures. They suggest that 90% of all
pipe failures result in a hole size less than 50% of the pipe area. The
following approach is suggested by the book.
o For small bore piping up to 1.5 inch, use 5 mm (0.2 inch) and full-
bore ruptures
o For 2 inch to 6 inch piping use 5 mm (0.2 inch), 25 mm (1 inch),
and full-bore holes
o For 8 inch to 12 inch piping use 5 mm (0.2 inch), 25 mm (1 inch),
and 100 mm (3.9 inch) and full bore holes
o Additional suggestions are made for pressure vessels and pumps

IChemE, Classification of Hazardous Locations, by A. W. Cox, F. P. Lees, and

M. L. Ang. This document provides suggestions for leak size for sources
including gasketed flanges, pumps/compressors, drains, sample points, flanges,
valves, reciprocating compressors, and small bore connections. Although line
breaks are not discussed, the vast majority of leak sizes suggested are 2 inch
diameter or less.

Process Safety Progress, A Survey of Vapor Cloud Explosions: Second Update,

by Eric M. Lenior and John A. Davenport, 1993. This document provides a data
base on losses from past VCE events. Specific guidance on hole size is not given
in the document; however, the data base has line size information for some of the
cited incidents. The database is not always clear if the incident was a full bore
rupture of the lines; likely, some are and some are not. Included are several
examples of line ruptures of 2 inch and much greater diameter. Some examples
of line sizes and the descriptor used to describe the break are as follows.
rupture of a 150 mm (5.9 inch) line
broken 40 mm (1.6 inch) connection to a 150 mm (5.9 inch) line
failure of a 350 mm (13.8 inch) thermal recycle line
ruptured pipeline
failure of a 400 mm (15.7 inch) vapor line
 a 50 mm pipe (2 inch) cracked
failure of a 200 mm (7.9 inch) line
a 150 mm (5.9 inch) overhead line from a depropanizer failed
rupture of a 200 mm (7.9 inch) elbow
a 200 mm (7.9 inch) pipeline at 5.2 MPa (754 psi) failed.
As can be seen, there is no consensus regarding selection of hole size; however, note that values
of 2 inch, 4 inch and higher are often discussed. Hence, consideration of only small line breaks
is not advisable.
ABS Consulting in San Antonio has performed over 100 plant siting studies for a wide range of
clients (large, small, chemical, and refinery.) This discussion is limited to studies performed in
that past few years.

We found three types of practices as follows.

(1) Companies that had standard leak sizes or an upper limit to leak size as part of company-
wide policy.
(2) Companies that had individual plants develop scenarios based on site specific conditions.
In order to select release scenarios, Individual plants would evaluate unit line conditions,
their incident histories (including near misses), and experiences at similar operating
plants.
(3) Companies that do not select a specific release scenario, instead assume a release large
enough to fill the congested part of the unit. Explosion modeling is then based on using
100% of the congested volume in a unit or process area as the explosion domain.
Roughly half the studies fall into group (2), based on our experiences, with the remaining half
shared between groups (1) and (2).
Hole sizes used in past studies performed by ABS Consulting for companies falling into groups
(1) and (2) above have ranged up to 6 inch diameter. Most frequently used was 2 inch diameter
holes. This was partly because this was a prevalent line size and partly because some companies
have adopted 2 inch holes as an upper limit. In some cases, the larger line sizes (those above 2
inch) are part of a Qualitative Risk Assessment and large releases assigned a low relative
frequency, which lessen their impact on corrective actions. However, some Consequence
Analysis studies have included line breaks larger than 2 inch as company history has indicated
such potential.
Companies choosing approach (3) above take a more conservative path than the other
approaches, with the exception of small process unit volumes are small where filling the
congestion can be achieved even with moderate leak sizes.
ABS Consulting recommends using full bore ruptures of actual line sizes up to 2 inch diameter
lines and a percentage of the line size there after based on published information in the Dow's
Chemical Exposure Index Guide.