RIGOS

Health & Safety Executive
HSE
Research to improve guidance on separation distance for the multi-energy method (RIGOS)
Prepared by TNO Prins Maurits Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2005
RESEARCH REPORT 369
Health & Safety Executive
HSE
Research to improve guidance on separation distance for the multi-energy method (RIGOS)
A.C. van den Berg A.L. Mos TNO Prins Maurits Laboratory Lange Kleiweg 137 P.O. Box 45 2280 AA Rijswijk The Netherlands
This report describes the RIGOS-research program. The primary objective of this program was to develop practical guidance with regard to the Critical Separation Distance. The Critical Separation Distance is a basic element in the application of the TNO Multi-Energy method for vapour cloud explosion blast modelling. To this end, a series of gas explosion experiments have been performed in a donor acceptor configuration. The blast was recorded at several positions around while the separation distance between donor and acceptor was gradually diminished. When the blast was observed to consist of just one single instead of two separate waves, the separation distance was assumed critical. The experimental program resulted in a limited number of concrete indications with respect to the Critical Separation Distance, in particular in the low explosion overpressure range. On the basis of this limited information concrete guidance was drawn up based on safety and conservatism. This guidance was extrapolated to the high explosion overpressure range on the basis of common sense. Apart from this primary objective, the RIGOS program led to a substantial amount of additional and interesting information. The data show, for instance, that for separation distances somewhat larger than critical, the donor explosion may largely suppress the acceptor explosion. The gas dynamics of the donors negative phase could explain this surprising observation. The experimental data also gave the opportunity to validate current simple blast modelling methodologies on the acceptor gas explosion data. Because of the directional flame propagation mode in the acceptor, the acceptor gas explosions differ substantially from the spherically developing gas explosions, the simple blast modelling methodologies were derived from. The conclusion is that the current simple blast modelling methodologies tend to overestimate the blast effects from the acceptor explosions by more than an order in magnitude, in particular in the low explosion overpressure range. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE BOOKS
Crown copyright 2005 First published 2005 ISBN 0 7176 6146 6 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
TNO report
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
PML 2002-C50 4
Contents
1 2
Introduction................................................................................................1 Background ................................................................................................3 2.1 History ........................................................................................3 2.2 The Critical Separation Distance................................................4 Research program .................................................................................... 7 3.1 Objectives ................................................................................. 7 3.2 Approach .................................................................................. 7 3.3 Test location ............................................................................. 8 3.4 The obstacle configurations...................................................... 8 3.5 The test set-up........................................................................... 9 Test program ............................................................................................12 4.1 Variation of Separation Distance (SD) .....................................12 4.2 Tests with a connection between donor and acceptor representing a pipe rack............................................................15 4.3 Combination of large and small obstacles ................................16 Results and Analysis ................................................................................18 5.1 Donor-acceptor explosion behaviour........................................18 5.2 The Critical Separation Distance..............................................25 5.3 Influence of a Connecting Obstacle Configuration ..................30 5.4 Influence of the Obstacle Diameter ..........................................37 5.5 Practical Guidance on the critical separation distance .............39 Additional information from experiments ...............................................42 6.1 Donor-acceptor explosion behaviour........................................42 6.2 Validation of blast modelling methods.....................................46 Conclusions..............................................................................................67 References................................................................................................69 Authentication..........................................................................................72
7 8 9
COMPTIAL iii
iv
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 5
Introduction
This report describes the results of a research project with the primary objective to develop practical guidance with respect to the Critical Separation Distance. The Critical Separation Distance is a basic element in the application of the TNO MultiEnergy Method. The TNO Multi-Energy Method is a simple method for vapour cloud explosion blast modelling, which is based on the Multi-Energy concept. The Multi-Energy concept is the basic feature of vapour cloud deflagration that overpressure/blast develops only in parts of the cloud that are located in partially confined or congested areas. An important consequence of the Multi-Energy concept is that if one single extended vapour cloud of flammable composition comprises more than one partially confined or congested areas that are separated by open spaces of sufficient extent, the vapour cloud explosion on ignition develops the same number of separate blasts. If, on the other hand, open spaces between partially confined or congested areas are insufficient, the blast of the vapour cloud explosion should be modelled as one single blast of summed energy content. The blasts are modelled by the application of blast charts compiled for an equivalent hemispherical fuel-air charge. The Critical Separation Distance between partially confined/congested areas is the criterion that enables to discriminate between the modelling by one single blast or more than one blast, i.e. to be able to discriminate between open spaces of sufficient or insufficient extent. The critical separation distance is, therefore, a basic element in the Multi-Energy method and of paramount importance for its application. This report describes an experimental program to develop quantitative guidance with regard to the Critical Separation Distance. To this end, explosions of smallscale vapour clouds containing two separate configurations of obstacles (representing separate process units on a chemical plant) were produced. Blast effects at various distances were recorded while the separation distance between the configurations of obstacles was varied. The critical separation distance is defined as the minimum separation distance between two congested areas still resulting in two separate blast waves. In addition to the separation distance, the size and obstacle density of the donor as well as the fuel in the gas cloud were varied. These series of experiments constituted the bulk of the research program. In addition, it was investigated through a limited number of tests if the critical separation distance is also dependent on the obstacle diameter in the donor. Also, it was studied whether the critical separation distance would possibly be influenced by a connection of limited cross-sectional area between donor and acceptor, representing for instance a pipe rack between two process units.
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 6
This research program resulted in a substantial body of experimental data on donor-acceptor explosions. This data set offered the opportunity to validate the methodologies for simple vapour cloud explosion blast modelling on gas explosions substantially different from those these methods were derived from. This report describes the research program. After a brief introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 describes the background of the Multi-Energy blast modelling as well as the guidance for its application, developed over the years in the multi-sponsor research programs GAME and GAMES. The Chapters 3 and 4 describe the objectives, the general approach in this research program as well as a detailed definition of the various series of experiments. Finally, the experimental results and their analysis have been reported in the Chapters 5 and 6.
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 7
Background
2.1
History
The Multi-Energy Method (Van den Berg, 1985), developed as a more reasonable alternative for TNT-equivalency, is a simple method to model the blast from vapour cloud explosions. The method recognises a characteristic feature of vapour cloud explosions by assuming that the overpressure and blast are generated only in the parts that are located inside partially confined and congested areas. The implicit assumption is that any detonative flame propagation will immediately fail outside the partially confined and congested areas because of the inhomogeneity of the flammable mixture. Generally speaking, vapour clouds dispersing in the atmosphere are too inhomogeneously mixed to maintain a detonation. The vapour cloud explosion record shows that this assumption holds for a vast majority of cases. Initially, the Multi-Energy Method could only be applied in a rather global manner by making safe and conservative assumptions. Basic potentials of the methodology had not yet been explored. Nevertheless, the Multi-Energy Method was selected for inclusion in the latest fully revised version of the Yellow Book (CPR-14E, 1997). An important potential of the fuel-air blast charts used in the Multi-Energy Method is the possible discrimination in explosion strength or the explosion overpressure DP0. The first initiative to develop guidance for the determination of the explosion overpressure has been the project GAME (Eggen, 1995 and Van den Berg and Eggen, 1996). The main effort in this project consisted of the compilation of a correlation of the explosion overpressure with a set of parameters characterising the size and obstacle density of a congested area as well as the reactivity of the flammable mixture in the cloud. The correlation was compiled from the results of extensive experimental research programmes performed over the years in the projects MERGE and EMERGE (Mercx, et al., 1994a and b, 1996, 1997). The correlation is based on the observation that the overpressure in a gas explosion is predominantly determined by: the number of obstacles passed by the flame during propagation away from the ignition to the edge of the obstacle configuration; the type of fuel; the geometric scale. To parameterise an obstacle configuration, three parameters were introduced: The Volume Blockage Ratio (VBR) which is the ratio of the summed volume of the obstacles in an obstructed region and the volume of that region, assuming the obstacles consist of cylinders; The distance a flame can propagate within an obstructed region (Lf); The average obstacle diameter (D).
3
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 8
The influence of the scale and the fuel is taken into account by a theory, developed by Taylor and Hirst (1988), Catlin (1991) and Catlin and Johnson (1992), based on Karlovitz number similarity. Because the origin of scale effects in gas explosions is predominantly in the scale of the turbulence, the average obstacle diameter D was chosen as the scale parameter while the laminar burning velocity Sl was adopted as the parameter characteristic for the reactivity of the flammable mixture.
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 -2.50
Overpressure (Bar)
Harrison Hjertager MERGE
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
b 2.7
0.00 *D )
0.7
0.50
1.00
LOG ((VBR*Lf/D) *Sl
Figure 1:
Observed overpressures and correlation line for MERGE experiments.
The correlation, consisting of a best fit of the experimental data in Figure 1, is expressed as:
VBR.L f DPo = 0.84 D
2 , 75
.S l2.7 .D 0.7
The correlation makes it possible to make an estimate of an explosion overpressure in realistic problems such as, for instance, a chemical or refinery plant. The follow-up project GAMES (Mercx, 1998) was meant to investigate the practical difficulties encountered when the correlation was applied to a realistic plant. The exercises performed in GAMES resulted in practical guidance for the determination of the volume blockage ratio VBR, the flame path length Lf and the average obstacle diameter D.
2.2
The Critical Separation Distance
The Multi-Energy method recognises that in gas deflagration, turbulence generative boundary conditions are the predominant factor in the development of overpressure and blast. The mechanism of a gas deflagration implicates that as soon as the appropriate turbulence generative boundary conditions are lacking, the burning
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 9
speed and the pressure build-up in the process of flame propagation drop. The implicit assumption is that the flammable mixture in the cloud is too inhomogeneously mixed to maintain a detonation. The direct consequence of the Multi-Energy concept is that an extended vapour cloud containing several obstructed areas, separated by open spaces of sufficient extent, will produce the same number of separate blast waves on ignition. In the modelling of blast effects, therefore, the individual obstructed areas should be separately considered. The problem has been visualised in Figure 2. A large flammable vapour cloud has covered two densely obstructed areas of explosive potential: a chemical plant and closely parked boxcars at a railway shunting yard. The space in between the two regions is open and unobstructed. If the distance between the two is sufficient, the ensuing gas explosion on ignition will develop two separate blasts.
Figure 2:
Two obstructed regions in a large cloud. One big or two smaller explosions?
The Yellow Book (CPR-14E, 1997) intuitively defines a congested area as an area in which obstacles are positioned within a 10 obstacle diameters distance from one another with an upper limit of 25 m. This statement would suggest a Critical Separation Distance equal to 10 obstacle diameters with an upper bound of 25 m. In the final report of the GAMES-project, a preliminary safe and conservative guideline for the quantification of the term open spaces of sufficient extent has been developed on the basis of global theoretical considerations. This preliminary guideline runs as follows: The Critical Separation Distance around a potential blast source area is equal to half its linear dimension in each direction. If the distance between potential sources is larger, the sources should be modelled as separate blasts. If not, they should be modelled as one single blast of summed energy content.
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 10
This preliminary guidance was based on the observation that the combustion process in a gas explosion is driven by turbulence. As the turbulence is generated in the expanding medium in interaction with the obstacles, the influence of the turbulent combustion cannot extend beyond the fuel-air mixture initially present within the obstructed area. As the expansion factor of stoichiometric fuel-air mixtures is approximately equal to 8, the turbulent combustion in a threedimensionally expanding gas explosion will be anyway limited to a volume of a linear dimension equal to twice that of the obstructed region. It is to be expected that the critical separation distance can be expressed as a certain portion of the size of the obstructed donor volume, indeed, but can probably be taken smaller than the preliminary estimate. The obstacles in an obstructed area determine the scale of the turbulence and thereby the turbulence decay outside the obstructed region. Because turbulence is the predominant combustion-driving phenomenon in gas explosions, it may be expected that the critical separation distance is also dependent on the diameter of the obstacles.
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 11
Research program
3.1
Objectives
The primary objective of the project is to develop practical guidance with regard to the Critical Separation Distance, a basic element in the application of the MultiEnergy method. This overall objective can be split into several related subobjectives, which can be designated as follows: To generate a database on donor-acceptor gas explosions. To generate understanding of the process of flame propagation from donor to acceptor in relation to the blast produced. To measure the Critical Separation Distance dependent on the donor size, the donor obstacle density and fuel reactivity. To investigate whether the Critical Separation Distance is influenced by the diameter of the obstacles in the donor obstacle configuration. To investigate whether the Critical Separation Distance is influenced by a connection of small cross-sectional dimension between two obstacle configurations, representing a pipe rack between process units of a chemical plant. To develop practical guidance on the Critical Separation Distance in the application of the Multi-Energy method. The availability of the substantial body of experimental data generated in this project offered the opportunity to extend the program with an additional objective, namely: To evaluate the performance of simple vapour cloud explosion blast modelling methods on explosions substantially differing from those, these methods were derived from.
3.2
Approach
To determine the Critical Separation Distance, two configurations of obstacles were placed at a certain distance (Separation Distance) from one another. The two configurations including the open space in between were enclosed in plastic sheet to contain a flammable gas mixture. One obstacle configuration, in whose centre the flammable cloud was ignited, was referred to as the donor and the other as the acceptor. In a series of tests the Separation Distance was varied and the blast was measured at various locations around. The maximum separation distance at which the blast waves from donor and acceptor were found to coincide, was designated as the Critical Separation Distance. The size and obstacle density of the acceptor were kept constant all over the program as they were considered not to influence the Critical Separation Distance. The
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 12
composition and dimensions of the donor, on the other hand, were expected to have a substantial influence. Therefore, the following parameters were varied: The dimensions of the Donor (DD); The Volume Blockage Ratio of the donor (VBR); The Fuel (F); The Separation Distance between donor and acceptor (SD). In some additional tests, it was investigated if the obstacle diameter in the donor has some influence on the Critical Separation Distance. Besides, a very limited number of experiments have been performed in which the donor and acceptor were connected by an obstacle configuration of small cross-sectional dimensions, representing a pipe rack between separate process units of a chemical plant. Both, the size of the connecting obstacle configuration as well as the fuel were varied.
3.3
Test location
The experiments have been performed at the so-called FAST facility of TNO Prins Maurits Laboratory. The facility consists of a concrete pad in which various cable trays are present for the protection of cables and other measuring equipment. The concrete pad is situated in an open flat terrain, large enough to prevent reflections from influencing the measurements.
3.4
The obstacle configurations
The composition of the obstacle configurations are identical to those used in the MERGE and EMERGE projects. They consist of a number of tubes of circular cross-section. The tubes are orientated in a fully regular way in three perpendicular directions. Figure 3 shows a part of a typical MERGE obstacle configuration. This particular part has 5 horizontal layers of cylindrical obstacles. Each layer consists of 5 by 5 obstacles orientated in two perpendicular directions. There are 25 vertical obstacles; each of these connects the knots in the horizontal layers at corresponding horizontal co-ordinates. This particular configuration is denoted as a 5 5 5 obstacle configuration.
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 13
Figure 3:
Typical MERGE obstacle configuration as used in the RIGOS-project.
The composition of an obstacle configuration is characterised by: the Diameter of the cylinders (D); the axial spacing (Pitch) between adjacent tubes (P); the Number of cylinders in a row (N). The length L and the width W of the configurations were taken equal, while the height H was taken as 0.5L. The ignition location was in the centre of the donor at ground level. A tube diameter of D=19.1 mm in arrays of pitches of P = 4.65D and P = 7D resulted in obstacle configurations of volume blockage ratios of VBR = 10.1% and VBR = 4.6% respectively. The obstacle configurations were indicated as type A and type B, respectively. The configuration of the acceptor is characterised by N = 16, P = 4.65D, giving a VBR = 10.1% and was kept constant all over the program.
3.5
The test set-up
3.5.1 Layout Roughly speaking, all experiments were of a similar set-up as represented in Figures 4a and 4b.
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 14
B1 3m from centre of donor
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
B2, B3 and B4 3,6 and 12 m from centre of acceptor
F1
F9
Figure 4a:
Test set-up in the AE, AM, BE and BM test series.
Experiments were performed on a concrete pad in which a cable tray has been cut away. The cable tray was covered with a steel lid in which measuring instrumentation can be mounted. The donor and acceptor obstacle arrays were placed on the pad centred on the cable tray (Figure 4a and 4b). Together they were enclosed in a tent of plastic sheet to contain the flammable gas mixture. The position of the acceptor was fixed all over the experimental program. The position of the donor varied with the variation of the separation distance and the donor size. Pressure was measured in 9 stations positioned at more or less regular distances along the axis within the donor-acceptor configurations (P1 P9). The pressure gauges P4 to P9 were mounted in and flush to the cable tray lid. The pressure gauges P1 to P3 were fixed to the donor obstacle array. At nearly the same locations, thermocouples were mounted to measure flame arrival times (F1-F9). In the first 4 tests AE01 AE04, blast overpressures were recorded at 1 station at 3-m distance from the donor centre (B1), at 2 stations at 3 and 6-m distance from the acceptor centre in the donor-acceptor direction and at 1 station at 3-m distance from the acceptor in cross direction. In the rest of the AE, AM, BE and BM test series, the blast overpressures were measured at 1 station at 3-m distance from the donor centre (B1) and 3 stations at 3, 6 and 12 m distance respectively from the acceptor centre (B2-B4). To study directionality effects in the blast, in a later stage in the program the number of blast overpressure gauges was extended. As indicated in Figure 4b, the number of pressure gauges near the donor was extended to 3, positioned at 3, 6 and 12 m distance from the donor centre. The number of pressure gauges near the acceptor was extended with 3, positioned at 3, 6 and 12 m distance from the acceptor centre perpendicular to the direction of flame propagation (Figure 4b).
B1,B2 and B3 3,6 and 12 m from centre of donor
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9 F9
F1
Figure 4b:
Test set-up in the AP, CP, DP and the DM test series.
10
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 15
3.5.2 Instrumentation The signals from the pressure gauges and thermocouples have been transmitted to the SCADAS II Signal Conditioning and Data Acquisition System. Pressures inside the donor-acceptor configuration are measured by means of piezo-resistive transducers, Druck type PDCR 200 (FS 600 kPa). The membranes are covered with 2 mm black and 1 mm white silicon grease to reduce flashlight sensitivity and drift caused by the heat of the flame. Two different kinds of blast gauges have been be used: blast pencils (Kulite transducers) as well as pressure gauges mounted in skimmer plates (Druck PDCR 10/F transducers). To detect the flame position during the experiments Chromel/Alumel thermocouples have been used. Thermocouples record a temperature increase and thereby the passage of a flame front (interface between unburned and burnt gases). The ignition consisted of a spark capacitor circuit and a spark plug. The energy released to the spark plug has a maximum gross content of 2 Joule. A combination of electromagnetic and optic techniques determines the moment of ignition. 3.5.3 Mixture preparation and control The flammable gas is taken from a gas cylinder and piped into the array through a gas inlet. Fans at the perimeter of the obstacle array create a flow inside the array to promote adequate mixing of gas and air. The fans are switched off about one minute prior to ignition. The gas mixture is pumped to the gas analyser via suction lines. One sample point is a few cm above ground level and a second sample point is located near the top of the array. Samples are taken continuously at the two locations until one minute prior to ignition. The samples are inserted to an Infrared Analysis System. The concentration can be measured with an accuracy of approximately 0.1% by volume.
11
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 16
Test program
The primary objective of the experimental program was to determine the Critical Separation Distance (CSD). Because only donor properties were expected to influence the Critical Separation Distance, the acceptor has been kept constant all over the experimental program. In addition to the separation distance, of course, the Donor Dimension (DD), the donor Volume Blockage Ratio (VBR) as well as the fuel reactivity were varied. Besides, it was investigated through a limited number of experiments whether the Critical Separation Distance is dependent on the obstacle diameter in the donor. The test program has been largely completed in conformity with the original project proposal, although some straightforward adaptations appeared necessary during the project. Many separation distances tested, for instance, have been taken substantially smaller than those originally proposed. After a progress meeting with sponsors halfway through the project, the program was adjusted to some specific sponsor wishes. In addition, some changes appeared to be necessary to avoid damaging high explosion pressures. It appeared that if the separation distance was near critical, sometimes overpressures were produced that destroyed the obstacle arrays and produced blast that damaged surrounding buildings. This compelled to test only separation distances larger than critical for ethylene-air. In the next Chapters, all experiments of the program will be defined and provided with a number that corresponds to the data in the RIGOS measuring report (De Bruijn and Van Ierschot, 2002).
4.1
Variation of Separation Distance (SD)
The acceptor obstacle configuration had dimensions of 1408 1408 704 mm3, an obstacle diameter of D = 19.1 mm and a Volume Blockage Ratio of VBR = 10.1% (type A) and N = 16 and was kept constant all over the program. The experiment number was composed from a letter combination and a number. The letter combination indicated the obstacle configuration of the donor and the fuel used. AE - type A donor and ethylene as fuel AM - type A donor and methane as fuel BE - type B donor and ethylene as fuel BM - type B donor and methane as fuel For each value of the Donor Dimensions (DD), the separation distance was varied.
12
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 17
Test series AE: Fuel = Ethylene (stoichiometric mixture with air) Donor array: D = 19.1 mm P = 4.65D = 89 mm hence : VBR = 10.1% DD1 DD2 DD3
Table 1:
= 1060 mm, = 1408 mm, = 1760 mm,
N = 12 N = 16 N = 20
Definition of test series AE.

Test number
SD/DD DD1 DD2 DD3
0.25 AE05 AE09 -
0.5 AE04 AE07 Cancelled
1 AE01 AE06 Cancelled
1.5 AE02 AE08 Cancelled
2 AE03
Because donor explosion overpressures with medium donor size DD2 were already substantial and damaging overpressures were anticipated with larger donor size, it was decided to cancel the AE experiments with the large donor dimension DD3 originally proposed. Instead, these experiments were performed with methane as part of the AM-series. Series AM: In the AM-series, the donor obstacle configuration was of type A again while stoichiometric methane-air was used as the flammable mixture. Four tests of Series AE have been repeated using methane as the fuel, while the experiments with the largest donor size (DD3) replaced the tests in the AE-series, cancelled because of the expected high explosion pressures. In Table 2 the various tests in the AM-series have been defined and numbered.
Table 2: Definition of test series AM.
Test number SD/DD DD2 DD3 0.125 AM12 0.25 AM05 AM11 0.50 AM04 AM10 1.00 AM02/03 AM09 1.50 AM01 2.00 -
Series AM extended During the performance of the AE and AM-series, it was observed that, although the separation distance was much larger than critical, the donor explosion had a substantial influence on the strength of the acceptor explosion. Therefore, it seemed appropriate to know the strength of the acceptor explosion without the presence of a donor. To this end, 3 additional experiments AM6 AM8 were defined as indicated in Figure 5.
13
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 18
AM02 / AM03
A
Plastic sheet
AM06
AM07
A
Figure 5:
AM08
Definition of experiments AM06 AM08.
The donor obstacle configuration was removed. In experiment AM06 and AM07 the original plastic sheet tent configuration was maintained while the ignition location was varied from the original (centre donor) to the edge of the acceptor. In experiment AM08, the size of the tent was reduced to the size of the acceptor. Series BE: In the B-series, the donor obstacle configuration was of type B, i.e. a volume blockage ratio VBR of 4.6%. Parameters, characterising the type B configuration, are: Obstacle diameter D = 19.1 mm and pitch Z = 7 D = 134 mm Fuel = Ethylene (stoichiometric mixture with air) Donor size: DD1 = 1064 mm, N = 8 rows DD2 = 1330 mm, N = 10 rows DD3 = 1596 mm, N = 12 rows The experiments in the BE-series were defined and numbered as tabulated below in Table 3.
Table 3: Definition and coding of the BE-tests.
Test number SD/DD DD1 DD2 DD3 0.125 0.25 BE07 BE10 0.50 BE02 BE06 BE09 1.00 BE01 BE05 BE08 1.50 2.00 BE03 -
14
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 19
Series BM: Only two tests with maximum donor size DD3 have been performed with methane as a fuel in the B-series. The tests have been defined and numbered in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Definition and coding of the BM-tests.
Test number SD/DD DD3 0.125 BM02 0.25 BM01
4.2
Tests with a connection between donor and acceptor representing a pipe rack
Series CM, CE, CP and AP: The A and B-series so far, consisted of donor-acceptor experiments representing two chemical plants separated by a fully open and unobstructed area, an empty lane for instance. In practice, however, separate plants are often mutually connected by, for instance, a pipe rack. To investigate whether the critical separation distance is influenced by the presence of some connection like a pipe rack between separate plants, 6 experiments were originally projected. The donor configuration was of type A (VBR=10.1%) and separation distance was 0.5DD. The connection between donor and acceptor consisted of obstacle configuration type A and its crosssectional area was varied. A schematic view of this test set-up is represented in Figure 6.
Figure 6:
Schematic view of set-up in the test series C.
During the progress meeting halfway through the project, sponsors proposed to start with the tests with the maximum rack cross-section. Because the presence of the rack was not observed to substantially influence the flame propagation from donor to acceptor, the other tests in the CM series were cancelled. The experiments in the C-test series were defined and numbered in the Tables 5a.
Table 5a: Definition and numbering of C test series (SD=0.5DD).
CM01 CE01 CP01 CP02 As AM04 plus rack 8 x 8 x 4 tubes As AE07 plus rack 8 x 8 x 4 tubes As AP02 plus rack 8 x 2 x 1 tubes As AP02 plus rack 8 x 4 x 2 tubes
15
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 20
Because the result of the CE01 test was disastrous for the experimental rig, the rest of the C test series was performed with propane as fuel. However, to be able to observe the influence of a connecting obstacle configuration on the development of a donor-acceptor explosion, identical experiments with propane but without a connection had to be performed. To this end, the experiments AP01 and AP02 were defined and numbered as in Table 5c.
Table 5c: Definition and numbering of the AP series.
AP01 AP02 SD = DD SD = 0.5DD
4.3
Combination of large and small obstacles
So far, the experiments were performed with obstacle configurations of one single obstacle diameter. The diameter of the obstacles determines the scale of the large eddies in the spectrum of turbulent motion and the rate of turbulence decay and thereby the distance over which the turbulent burning in the wake of obstacles may decrease. Therefore, it seems likely that the Critical Separation Distance is dependent on the obstacle diameter in the donor. To investigate this aspect, the D test series was defined. To this end, a B type obstacle configuration (P = 7D, VBR=4.6%, N=12) was provided with a regular vertical configuration of 24 PVC tubes of 114 mm diameter (Figure 7). The tubes contribute 9.6% to the volume blockage ratio. The result is configuration of obstacles of mixed diameters of a total VBR of 14.2%.
Figure 7:
Horizontal cross-section of B-type obstacle configuration provided with a regular pattern of 114 mm diameter vertical tubes, used as donor in the D test series
16
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 21
Originally some tests with ethylene-air were planned. However, to preclude any chance of damaging high overpressure and blast, ethylene was replaced by propane and for the smallest separation distances by methane. Test definition and numbering has been tabulated in Table 6.
Table 6: Definition and numbering of D- test series.
Test number SD/DD DD3 DD3 SD = 0.05 m DM02 0.125 DP04 DM01 0.25 DP03 0.375 DP02 0.50 DP01
17
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 22
Results and Analysis
5.1
Donor-acceptor explosion behaviour
5.1.1
Some preliminary theoretical considerations
A gas explosion as a process of two competing phenomena Sometimes, a simplified conception of complicated phenomena may be helpful in the understanding and interpretation of behaviour observed. A gas explosion, for instance, can be circumscribed as a process of flame propagation through a flammable mixture. The explosion overpressure developed can be considered the result of two competing effects, namely: Pressure build-up by the combustion rate, which is governed by the flame speed as a characteristic velocity. Pressure relief by the expansion, which is governed by the speed of sound as a characteristic velocity. If the flame speed is much lower than the speed of sound, the pressure relief dominates the pressure development and consequently the explosion overpressure is low. Then, phenomena like side relief of combustion products play an important role. If, on the other hand, the flame speed is much higher than the speed of sound, the pressure relief cannot keep pace with the pressure build-up and the explosion pressure is high. When the flame speed increases up to the order of the speed of sound, side relief is less and less important and flame propagation in an obstacle environment seems to develop more and more independently of the expansion. When the flame speed is of the order of the speed of sound, the pressure build-up and relief balance more or less. Then, the explosion overpressure is typically of the order of 100 kPa. A gas explosion as an acoustic volume source Another simplified conception of a gas explosion that greatly enhances the feel for and the understanding of blast generation by flame propagation in gas explosions is the acoustic volume source analogue according to Auton and Pickles (1978a and 1978b) and Strehlow (1981). Because combustion is accompanied with a large density drop of the gaseous material, a gas explosion can be considered a source of volume. The overpressure generated at a distance r from an acoustic volume source in half space can be calculated from a potential function (Lighthill, 1978) and is equal to (Strehlow, 1981):
DP =
r 0 dV (a - 1) r 0 d . ( A f .S b ) . = 2pr dt 2pr dt
COMPA
18
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 23
where: DP a ro r V t Af Sb
= overpressure (Pa) = expansion factor = ambient density (kg/m3) = distance from source (m) = volume source strength (m3/s) = time (s) = flame surface area (m2) = burning speed (m/s)
This simple expression demonstrates that a volume source generates an overpressure only if the volume source strength grows with time. Consequently, a gas explosion will develop blast only if it increases its volume source strength, i.e. the product of its flame surface area and its burning speed. This explains why a spherically developing gas explosion, even if its flame speed is constant, generates a pressure effect (blast). The reason is that its flame surface area continually grows during the flame propagation. It also explains why an elongated flammable vapour cloud of more or less constant cross-sectional area, consumed by a constant velocity flame, develops hardly any blast. Substantial blast is produced only by acceleration of the flame propagation process. Very similarly, this acoustic analogue may explain the directionality found in the blast of many explosions where a flammable cloud is consumed by a flame travelling from one end to the other. If a propagating flame is considered a moving volume source, the developed overpressure piles up in the direction of flame propagation while the pressure rarefies in the opposite direction. In this way, the directionality in the blast effect can be explained by some sort of acoustic Dopplereffect. The Shchelkin effect In a gas explosion developing in an obstacle configuration, the (turbulent) flow structure developing in the flow in front of flame controls the burning. Because the combustion products expand, the flame bubble acts as an expanding piston that generates a flow field around. Such a flow field (blast) consists of a particle velocity distribution as well as a pressure distribution. A spatial obstacle configuration triggers a positive feedback mechanism by which the flame propagation process continuously accelerates. This feedback mechanism, called the Shchelkin effect, can be summarised as follows. Turbulence enhances combustion. An increasing burning speed intensifies the expansion flow. Increasing flow velocities go hand in hand with intensifying turbulence, which again enhances combustion etc. etc. Within a centrally ignited obstacle configuration, the flame is coupled to and drives a spherical flow field consisting of a continuously intensifying overpressure, flow velocity and turbulence field. The flame acts as an expanding piston. Because of the symmetry, a quantity of relatively stagnant, pressurised product gases develops within the flame bubble. As soon as the flame leaves the obstacle configuration, the flame front runs into a decaying turbulence field, by which the burning speed starts to decrease. The rate
COM
19
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 24
at which the turbulence decays outside the obstacle configuration is dependent on the scale of the large eddies in the turbulence spectrum and, consequently, on the obstacle size. As soon as the burning speed decreases, the overpressure drops at the location of the flame and rarefaction waves run backward into the pressurised bubble of combustion products and forward after the blastwave. The blast wave propagates at the local speed of sound and the flame front, transported by the particle velocity field of the expanding bubble of combustion products, tends to lag behind. The flame and the blast wave uncouple. Donor-acceptor flame propagation As soon as the flame leaves the donor obstacle configuration, the flame will tend to lag behind the donor blastwave. The conclusion is that, in principle, any separation distance between donor and acceptor will lead to some form of interruption in the flame propagation process and an uncoupling of the donor and acceptor blasts to some extent. Coincidence of donor and acceptor blasts for larger separation distances is only possible if the time difference between the passage of the donor blast in the acceptor and the generation of the acceptor blast is sufficiently small to enable the acceptor blast to overtake the donors at short distance. Acceptor blast can overtake the donor blast only if the acceptor blast is substantially stronger than the donors. The consequence is that coincidence of donor and acceptor blast can only be observed in the donor-acceptor direction. In the opposite acceptor-donor direction two separate blasts will be observed. When the spherical donor explosion runs out of fuel, the spherical symmetry is lost the flame front area abruptly reduces and the explosion progresses on as a directional process of flame propagation from the donor to and into the acceptor. The flame speed reduces to low, sometimes near-laminar flame speed level by back and side relief of the combustion products. The more or less abrupt transition of the flame propagation from a spherically symmetric process in the donor to a donoracceptor-directed process results in a temporal distortion of the gas dynamic equilibrium, which may be accompanied with pressure oscillations. Because a flame is an interface between high-density flammable mixture and low-density combustion products, it is susceptible to Taylor instability. Dependent on the direction of the pressure gradient, a flame surface is stable or unstable. Pressure oscillations may couple to and be amplified by such flame instabilities dependent on the fuel and composition of the mixture. The development of donor-acceptor flame propagation has been visualised in the Figures 8a (high-speed movie shots) and 8b (schematised). By the time the acceptor has been initiated, the flame speed development in the acceptor may be substantially suppressed by the lift off of the bubble of donor product gases. The buoyancy and consequently the ascent of the large cloud of combustion products entrains surrounding mixture and generates a backflow in the acceptor by which the development of the flame front propagation process in the acceptor may be substantially influenced.
COMPA
20
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 25
Figure 8a:
Donor-acceptor flame propagation.
Figure 8b:
Schematised donor-acceptor flame propagation.
5.1.2 Interpretation of typical donor-acceptor pressure-time records The Figures 9a, 9b, 10a and 10b show some typical results of the RIGOS donoracceptor tests, measured during the RIGOS program. Figures 9a and 9b show the experimental results of test AE8. Test AE8 is defined as follows: 10.1% VBR donor of medium size DD2; SD = 1.5DD; Stoichiometric ethylene-air.
COMPAN 21
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 26
PEB/PEI 014.10375
06/10/2000 AE08, SD1.5 p=4.65d, 16+
RIGOS AE08 SD=1.5DD
Pressure
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
80
60
40
Pressure [kPa]
20
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time [ms]
Figure 9a:
Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number AE8.
Figure 9a shows 9 overpressure-time histories recorded by the gauges P1 P9, positioned at various locations along the centre line of the donor-acceptor configuration from the point of ignition in the donor centre towards and into the acceptor (Figures 4a and 4b). Figure 9b shows the blast overpressure-time histories recorded at 3m from the donor centre in acceptor-donor direction (B1) and at 3, 6 and 12 m from the acceptor centre in the donor-acceptor direction (B2, B3 and B4). All the pressure-time records in the Figures 9a and 9b show a double-peaked path, indicating the development of two separate explosions. Because the donor develops a more or less spherically symmetric flame propagation, the pressure inside the flame bubble is more or less homogeneously distributed and the maximum overpressure developed is about equal all over the full donor volume (P1, P2 and P3).
COMPA
22
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 27
PEB/PEI 014.10375
16/08/2000 AE8
RIGOS
AE08 SD=1.5DD Blast

B1 B2 B3 B4
35
30
25
20
Pressure [kPa]
15
10
-5
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
Time [ms]
Figure 9b:
Blast overpressure-time signals B1- P4 recorded in test number AE8.
After the flame left the donor obstacle configuration, the flame speed dropped and the donor explosion developed a negative phase. Subsequently, the spherical donor explosion ran out of fuel and the flame traveled on in a directional mode crossing the separation distance. Here, the burning velocity reduced to near-laminar values, witness the zero pressure developed. The drop of the flame speed and the transition from the spherical into the directional mode of flame propagation was accompanied with a temporal loss of gas dynamic equilibrium by which pressure oscillations develop. These pressure oscillations may couple to flame instabilities by which, dependent on the fuel, the pressure oscillations may be amplified. The overpressure in the acceptor gradually developed from P6, where the flame enters the acceptor to a maximum in P9, where the flame left the acceptor. The explosion overpressures developed by donor and acceptor are 80 kPa and 55 kPa respectively. The time difference between the donor and acceptor explosion is about 100 ms. This time gap is also observed in the blast signals in Figure 9b, which clearly show that the blasts in acceptor-donor direction (B1) as well as in donor-acceptor direction (B2, B3 and B4) consisted of 2 waves separated by about 100 ms.
CO
23
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 28
PEB/PEI 014.10375
17/08/2000 AE9
RIGOS AE09 SD=0.25DD Pressure

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
400
Pressure [kPa]
200
20
40
60
80
100
Time [ms]
Figure 10a: Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number AE9.
PEB/PEI 014.10375
17/08/2000 AE9
RIGOS
AE09 SD=0.25DD Blast

B2 3m B3 6m B4 12m
120
100
80
Pressure [kPa]
60
40
20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Time [ms]
Figure 10b: Blast overpressure-time signals B1- P4 recorded in test number AE9.
24
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 29
Figures 10a and 10b show the comparable overpressure-time signals recorded in test AE9. In comparison to test AE8, in AE9 only the separation distance has been reduced to 0.25 DD. Figure 10a shows that, despite the small separation distance of 0.25DD, the flame propagation process and pressure build-up were clearly interrupted by the separation distance. The overpressure in the acceptor developed 4 to 6 ms after the donor. Now the acceptor overpressure (more than 400 kPa) was substantially higher than the donors. Pressure waves of that strength readily shock up and propagate at supersonic velocity. The consequence was that the acceptor blast overtook the donor blast in the donor-acceptor direction. This is clearly shown in the blast overpressure signals in Figure 10b. In the donor-acceptor direction the signals B2, B3 and B4 clearly show one single shocked blast wave. In the opposite direction, however, the B1-signal (black) shows that the blast consisted of two separate waves. The coincidence of the donor and acceptor blasts in the donor-acceptor direction indicates that the separation distance of 0.25DD in this test has been smaller than critial. The timing of the blast signals B2, B3 and B4 accurately corresponds with the respective gauge positions relative to the blast source and the blast wave propagation velocity.
5.2
The Critical Separation Distance
5.2.1 Approach The primary objective of the RIGOS project is the development of guidance regarding the critical separation distance. To this end, concrete data with regard to the critical separation distance dependent on various donor parameters is required. Initially, the intended approach in measuring the critical separation distance was very straightforward. The critical separation distance was to be determined by recording the blast effects produced by donor-acceptor obstacle configurations while the separation distance was gradually reduced. At the separation distance where just one single instead of two separate blast waves were observed in donoracceptor direction, the distance between donor and acceptor was assumed to be critical. However, during the performance of the program, it became clear that various practical difficulties stood in the way of such a simple approach or obscured clear observations. Due to damaging explosion overpressures that developed in the AE9 experiment when the separation distance was below critical, this straighforward approach appeared no longer possible. Necessarily, we had to restrict ourselves to low explosion overpressure experiments in the rest of the program. Low explosion overpressures were obtained by the application of methane and propane as fuels instead of ethylene. The overpressures, developed by the acceptor explosion with methane and propane as fuels, were low, just a few kPa. In addition, the effective energy contributing to the blast is very low. The con-
CO
25
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 30
sequence is that in many experiments with the smaller separation distances, the acceptor blast overpressure more or less coincided and was obscured by the secondary donor gas dynamics. This made the experimental results often hard to interprete. Nevertheless, in a limited number of tests the experimental results gave the indication that the separation distance was near-critical. In the next Chapter the results of these tests will be briefly summarised and commented. The full pressure-time records concerned can be found in the accompanying RIGOS experimental results report (De Bruijn and Van Ierschot, 2002). 5.2.2 Results
Test no. AE09 Test definition: Intermediate donor size of obstacle density A; Fuel ethylene; Separation distance: SD/DD2=0.25; Donor overpressure = 73 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = > 400 kPa. Although the pressure development in donor and acceptor are clearly separated, the acceptor overpressure is so high that the acceptor blast overtakes the donor blast at short distance. One single blast was observed in the donor-acceptor direction. The conclusion is that the separation distance is less than critical. Test no. AM12 Test definition: Intermediate donor size of obstacle density A; Fuel methane; Separation distance: SD/DD2=0.125; Donor overpressure = 26.5 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = ? kPa. Acceptor explosion overpressure seems to be obscured by negative phase and secondary wave of the donor. Test no. BE10 Test definition: Large donor size of obstacle density B; Fuel ethylene; Separation distance: SD/DD3=0.25; Donor overpressure = 19 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = 106 kPa. The pressure development in donor and acceptor are clearly separated. The acceptor blast is much stronger than the donors but is not strong enough to overtake the donors. Two separate blasts observed in either direction. In the donor-acceptor direction, the blasts are coupled, i.e. they are not separated by a negative phase.
CO
26
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 31
Blasts may further overtake in the far field. The conclusion is that the separation distance is near but just more than critical. Test no. BM02 Test definition: Large donor size of obstacle density B; Fuel methane; Separation distance: SD/DD3=0.125; Donor overpressure = 3.6 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = 2.2 kPa. Explosion overpressure development in donor and acceptor is coupled. Two peaks of comparable height (0.5 kPa) without an underpressure in between. This picture is maintained in the blast. As a consequence of low energy, acceptor blast seems to decay faster than donors and to lag behind increasingly. Separation distance seems to be slightly more than critical. Test no. DP04 Test definition: Large donor size of mixed obstacle density (B with big tubes); Fuel propane; Separation distance: SD/DD3=0.125; Donor overpressure = 8 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = 19 kPa. The process of pressure development in donor and acceptor is hardly interrupted by the separation gap. Separation distance clearly less than critical. Test no. DM01 Test definition: Large donor size of mixed obstacle density (B with big tubes); Fuel methane; Separation distance: SD/DD3=0.125; Donor overpressure = 5.2 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = 3 kPa. Acceptor overpressure seems to develop in the secondary wave of the donor. This picture is maintained in blast signals. Separation distance seems to be just more than critical. Test no. DM02 Test definition: Large donor size of mixed obstacle density (B with big tubes); Fuel methane; Separation distance: SD = 5 cm, i.e. SD/DD3=0.03; Donor overpressure = 8 kPa; Acceptor overpressure = 12 kPa.
27
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 32
One process of overpressure development in donor and acceptor at this small separation gap. Separation distance clearly less than critical. The above-listed tests, where the separation distance was near-critical, have been graphically represented in Figure 11. The less than critical and near-critical experiments have been indicated with red and purple dots respectively.
0.6
separation distance/donor size (-)
0.4
BE10 AE09
0.2
BM02 DM01 DP04 AM12
less than critical just more than critical more than critical
DM02
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
donor explosion overpressure (kPa)
Figure 11:
Critical separation distance dependent on donor overpressure.
5.2.3 Analysis Despite the practical difficulties in the direct observation of critical separation distances, the results of the entire test series greatly increased the understanding of the phenomena observed. The general trend coming forward is that the critical separation distance seems to increase up to more than 0.25DD as the donor explosion overpressure is higher than 90kPa (test AE9). On the other hand, the critical separation distance seems to tend to below 0.125DD for lower and lower donor explosion overpressures. A larger critical separation distance seems to apply for large obstacle diameter (test DP04). These tendencies can be made plausible by simple theoretical reasoning. In the theoretical considerations in Chapter 5.1.1, it was already explained that as soon as the flame leaves the donor, it propagates into a decaying turbulence field. The consequence is that its burning speed decreases and flame front and donor blast wave uncouple. The flame propagates at a speed determined by the local decaying turbulence level while the blast wave travels away with the speed of sound. Any separation distance between donor and acceptor will result in some
28
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 33
form of uncoupling of flame and donor blasts. Coincidence of donor and acceptor blasts is only possible if the time difference between donor and acceptor pressure build-up is sufficiently small while, in addition, the acceptor blast is sufficiently strong and energetic to be able to overtake the donor blast at short distance. The time difference between donor and acceptor pressure build-up can only be small if the separation gap is sufficiently small. Larger critical separation distances are only possible if the respective velocities, at which the flame and donor blast cross the separation gap, are of similar magnitude. For low donor explosion overpressure, donor flame speed and blast propagation speed (sound speed) differ too much to enable coincidence of donor and acceptor blasts. If, on the other hand, the maximum donor flame speed is of the order of the speed of sound, the time difference between donor and acceptor pressure build-up is small. If, in addition, the acceptor blast is much stronger than the donor blast, the acceptor blast will overtake the donors. The consequence is that larger critical separation distances will only be observed for higher explosion strengths. The donor overpressure must be of the order of 100 kPa (flame speed of the order of sound speed) while the acceptor blast must be sufficiently energetic and substantially stronger than the donors. Practical problems compelled to limit this experimental program to the relative low overpressure range. With respect to the question of practical guidance, it is interesting to philosophise on how the findings of this program could be extrapolated into the high overpressure range. In the limit of donor detonation, the environment of the donor is fully quiescent at the moment the donor fuel is completely burnt and the flame leaves the donor. According to the basic assumptions of the Multi-Energy concept, the detonation will fail at that instant. The flame surface will cross the separation gap riding on the expanding bubble of combustion products, which is a very fast process. As the expansion factor for stoichiometric hydrocarbon-air combustion is approximately 8, the bubble of donor combustion products will not expand beyond a distance of half the donor dimension (0.5DD). Therefore, a critical separation distance of 0.5DD seems a safe and conservative limit in the high explosion pressure range. This statement is in accordance with the preliminary guideline drafted during the GAMES-project (Mercx et al., 1998).
29
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 34
5.3
Influence of a Connecting Obstacle Configuration
5.3.1 Approach In practice, different process units at (petro-)chemical plant are often mutually connected through pipe racks. To investigate whether the critical separation distance between two process units is influenced by the presence of a connecting pipe rack, the C test series was designed. The objective was to represent a realistic situation by connecting the donor and acceptor by an obstacle configuration of the same obstacle density but of limited cross-section. The influence of the connection can be observed by comparison with the results from an identical test without a connection. 5.3.2 Results In Figure 12a and 12b, the pressure-time signals P1 P9 and B1 B4 recorded in test number AM04 have been represented. This experiment is defined as follows: Donor obstacle density A; Methane; Medium donor size DD2; Separation distance 0.5DD. In Figures 13a and 13b, the pressure-time signals P1 P9 and B4 B6 recorded in test number CM01 have been represented. Experiment CM01 differs from AM04 only in the presence of a connecting obstacle configuration of 84 obstacles crosssection. Like all pressure records in the AM test series, the pressure records P1 P9 in Figure 12a (test no. AM04) are characterised by substantial high-frequency pressure oscillations, which arise after the donor explosion in particular near the stations P4 P6 between donor and acceptor. Probably, the pressure oscillations are the consequence of flame instabilities, triggered by the temporal loss of the gas dynamic equilibrium at the moment the flame propagation process progresses from the spherically symmetric mode (donor) into the (donor-acceptor) directional mode. A striking difference with Figure 13a (test no. CM01) is that here, the pressure oscillations are absent. Apparently, the presence of an obstacle connection between donor and acceptor completely suppresses the oscillations.
CO
30
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 35
PEB/PEI 014.10375
28/08/2000 AM4, SD=0.5
RIGOS AM04 SD=0.5DD
Pressure
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
14 12 10 8 6 4
Pressure [kPa]
2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Time [ms]
Figure 12a: Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number AM04, without an obstacle connection.
PEB/PEI 014.10375
28/08/2000 AM4, SD=0.5
RIGOS
AM04 SD=0.5DD
Blast
B1 B2 B3 B4
Pressure [kPa]
-2
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
Time [ms]
Figure 12b: Blast overpressure-time signals B1(3m from donor) and B2 - B4 (3,6 and 12 m from acceptor) recorded in test number AM04 without an obstacle connection.
COMP
31
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 36
PEB/PEI 014.10375
15/05/2001 CM01
RIGOS CM01, SD=0.5DD, bridge 8x8x4, pressure

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
15.0k
10.0k
Pressure [Pa]
5.0k
0.0
-5.0k
-10.0k 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Time [s]
Figure 13a: Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number CM01 with an obstacle connection.
PEB/PEI 014.10375
09/03/2001 CM01
Blast CM01; 3, 6 and 12 m from centre ACCEPTOR, bridge 8x8x4

B4 3m B5 6m B6 12m
4k
3k
2k
Pressure [Pa]
1k
-1k
-2k 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Time [s]
Figure 13b: Blast overpressure-time signals B4 B6 (3,6 and 12 m from acceptor) recorded in test number AM04 with an obstacle connection.
32
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 37
The acceptors explosion overpressure develops in test CM01 much earlier after the donors than in test AM04. The presence of a connecting obstacle configuration does hardly amplify the acceptor explosion overpressure in this experiment but does substantially accelerate the moment of initiation of the acceptor. Where the average flame speed over the separation distance in test AM04 reduces down to near laminar values, in the connecting obstacle configuration in test CM01 it is of the order of several tens of m/s. Nevertheless, the connecting obstacle configuration is not able to maintain the flame speed and overpressure developed in the donor. The flame speed is too low and the pressure development is dominated by sideward and backward pressure relief. Figure 13b shows that despite the earlier initiation of the acceptor in test CM01, the blast clearly consists of two separate waves, which indicates that the separation distance has been larger than critical. The conclusion is that the presence of a connecting obstacle configuration substantially influences the flame propagation process between donor and acceptor and, consequently, will influence the critical separation distance. This is further demonstrated by comparing the results of the tests number AE07 and CE01. The only difference with the tests AM04 and CM01 is that now the fuel is ethylene, a lot more reactive than methane. The results are shown in the Figures 14 (AE07) and 15a, 15b and 15c (CE01). Because here the fuel is ethylene, the donor explosion develops a substantially higher overpressure, i.e. more than 70 kPa. Nevertheless, the separation distance (0.5DD) is amply sufficient to separate the donor and acceptor explosions (30 ms) and to completely separate their blasts. The Figures 15a, 15b and 15c show that, here, the presence of a connecting obstacle configuration of 84 obstacles cross-section has dramatic consequences. Figure 15a shows that the flame speed and overpressure developed in the donor (P1 P3) is sufficient to maintain and even further amplify in the connecting obstacle configuration (P6) and develop a detonation in the acceptor (P7 - P9). The pressure gauges in the acceptor got overloaded and the obstacle configurations were severely damaged. Probably, the anomalous behaviour observed by pressure gauge P2 is the the consequence of having been struck by some debris. Figure 15b shows the blastpressure signals at 3, 6 and 12 m distance from the donor centre in acceptor-donor direction. The signals show a clear double-peaked character indicating the interruption in the flame propagation by the transition from spherically symmetric mode (donor) to the directional mode (connection and acceptor). The blast pressure signals in the donor-acceptor direction (Figure 15c), on the other hand, show clearly that donor and acceptor blasts coincided, indicating that the separation distance was less than critical.
IAL
33
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 38
PEB/PEI 014.10375
16/08/2000 AE7

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
70
60
50
40
Pressure [kPa]
30
20
10
-10
-20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time [ms]
Figure 14:
Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number AE07 without an obstacle connection.
PEB/PEI 15/05/2001 014.10375 CE01
RIGOS Pressure CE01, bridge 8x8x4

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
400k
300k
Pressure [Pa]
200k
100k
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Time [s]
Figure 15a: Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test numberCE01 witht an obstacle connection.
NTIAL
34
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 39
PEB/PEI 09/05/2001 014.10375 CE01
Blast CE01; 3, 6 and 12 m from centre DONOR, bridge 8x8x4

B1 3m B2 6m B3 12m
50k
40k
30k
Pressure [Pa]
20k
10k
-10k 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090
Time [s]
Figure 15b: Blast overpressure-time signals B1 B3 (3,6 and 12 m from donor) recorded in test number CE01 with an obstacle connection.
PEB/PEI 09/05/2001 014.10375 CE01
Blast CE01; 3, 6 and 12 m from centre ACCEPTOR, bridge 8x8x4

B4 3m B5 6m B6 12m
60k
50k
40k
Pressure [Pa]
30k
20k
defect
10k
-10k 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090
Time [s]
Figure 15c: Blast overpressure-time signals B4 B6 (3,6 and 12 m from acceptor) recorded in test number CE01 with an obstacle connection.
CO
35
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 40
Experiment number CE01 strongly suggests that the connecting obstacle configuration of 84 obstacles cross-section, initiated by a donor explosion of sufficient strength could propagate and further amplify a gas explosion over separation distances of any length. It would be interesting to gradually diminish the connecting obstacle configuration cross-section to see whether smaller cross-sections are also able to propagate an explosion in a similar way. However, because we ran out of obstacle parts, after this test any chance of damaging overpressures had to be precluded. Therefore, the rest of the series with other connecting obstacle configurations were performed with propane as fuel. An identical test with propane but without an obstacle connection served for comparison. The tests, all performed with an A type donor, medium donor size and a separation distance equal to half the donor size, were defined and numbered as in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Test series to study the influence of connecting obstacle configurations.
AM04 CM01 AE07 CE01 AP02 CP01 CP02 No rack As AM04 plus rack 8 x 8 x 4 tubes No rack As AE07 plus rack 8 x 8 x 4 tubes No rack As AP02 plus rack 8 x 2 x 1 tubes As AP02 plus rack 8 x 4 x 2 tubes
With propane as fuel, the donor explosion develops about 30 kPa instead of the 70 kPa with ethylene. Comparing test number CP01 and CP02 with AP02, the conclusion is that an obstacle connection of a 2 x 1 obstacle cross-section has no observable influence on the flame propagation process. A 4 x 2 obstacle crosssection only slightly accelerated the flame propagation process over the separation distance. 5.3.3 Analysis The highly simplified conceptions of a gas explosion, described in Chapter 5.1.1, may be helpful in making the results of the C-test series plausible. At low speed, the flame propagation process is largely dominated by expansion. Consequently, slow flame propagation is very sensitive for effects like side and back relief. The flame speed will reduce down to low values when the flame propagation mode progresses from spherically symmetric (donor) to directional (acceptor) and the flame surface area is substantially reduced. A slow flame, propagating in a connecting obstacle configuration, will hardly speed up and consequently hardly develop any overpressure. With increasing speed, on the other hand, flame propagation is less and less sensitive to expansion. As flame propagation becomes faster and faster, it is less affected by the backward expansion of combustion products.
36
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 41
5.4
Influence of the Obstacle Diameter
5.4.1 Approach To observe whether the donor obstacle diameter has an influence on the Critical Separation Distance, the B type obstacle configuration of maximum size DD3 was provided with a regular pattern of vertical tubes of 114 mm diameter (Figure 7). A series of 6 donor-acceptor tests was performed in which the separation distance was gradually diminished according to Table 8. In the first 4 tests the fuel was propane. Where the separation distance in the propane tests tends to be smaller than critical, the propane was replaced by methane.
Table 8: Definition and numbering of D- test series.
Test number SD/DD DD3 DD3 SD = 0.05 m DM02 0.125 DP04 DM01 0.25 DP03 0.375 DP02 0.50 DP01
The full pressure-time records have been represented in the RIGOS experimental results report (De Bruijn and Van Ierschot, 2002) under the tabulated test numbers. The test series AE, AM, BE and BM have shown that the critical separation distance is primarily dependent on the explosion strength or the explosion overpressure in the donor. When the explosion overpressure was about 100 kPa, the critical separation distance appeared to be larger than 0.25 times the donor size. For decreasing donor strength, the critical separation distance seemed to tend to nearly zero. To be able to observe whether the obstacle diameter in the donor has an influence on the critical separation distance, strictly speaking, two identical experiments that only differ in obstacle diameter in the donor should be compared. Because the donor explosion overpressure and final flame speed is a significant factor in the critical separation distance, for a fair comparison the donor explosion strengths and consequently the maximum donor flame speed should be equal in both experiments. This is an impossibility with the available obstacle parts.
COMPAN 37
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 42
PEB/PEI 014.10375
06/09/2000 AM12, SD0.125, 20+
RIGOS AM12 SD=0.125DD Pressure

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
30
25
20
15
Pressure [kPa]
10
-5
-10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Time [ms]
Figure 16a: Pressure time records in experimentin test AM12, showing that the acceptor overpressure is fully obscured by the donors secondary wave.
PEB/PEI 01/06/2001 014.10375 DM01, SD=0.125
RIGOS, DM01, SD=0.125DD,
Presssure
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
6.0k
4.0k
2.0k
Pressure [Pa]
0.0
-2.0k
-4.0k 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Time [s]
Figure 16b: Pressure time records in experimentin test DM01.
COM
38
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 43
5.4.2 Results Nevertheless, comparison of the results of the tests AM12 and DM01 suggests there is some influence of the donor obstacle size. Both tests are with methane. Both tests are characterised by a large donor size and a separation distance of 0.125 times the donor size. Although the donor overpressure in test AM12 was substantially higher than in test DM01, the pressure time records P1 P9 of the test with the larger obstacles suggests a closer coupling of donor and acceptor explosions. Where the donor develops a pronounced negative phase in test AM12 and the acceptor overpressure is obscured by the donors secondary pressure wave (Figure 16a), the development in test DM01 seems to be more closely coupled (Figure 16b). This result strongly suggests that a larger obstacle size in the donor has a tendency to increase the critical separation distance. 5.4.3 Analysis Although the experimental results are not very convincing for the time being, there is good physical reason for a relation between donor obstacle diameter and critical separation distance. When the flame leaves the donor, it propagates into a decaying turbulence field. The decay rate of turbulence is closely related to the scale of the large eddies in the turbulence spectrum. The larger the scale, the slower the decay. The scale of the large eddies is directly related to the size of the obstacles. Consequently, larger obstacles will result in a relatively lower drop rate of the flames speed on leaving the donor. Higher flame speeds during the separation gaps crossing will tend to increase the critical separation distance. On the basis of the indication above, it would be expected that the Critical Separation Distance in the low explosion overpressure range could be expressed in a number of the obstacle diameters rather than in a number of donor dimensions. In test DP04, a separation distance of 0.125DD (which is equal to 1.75 times the obstacle diameter) was clearly less than critical. A separation distance of 0.25DD (3.5 times obstacle diameter) was clearly more than critical (test DP03). Data too limited for closer conclusions.
5.5
Practical Guidance on the critical separation distance
In many of the tests where the separation distance was near-critical, the donor gas dynamics partly suppressed the acceptor explosion overpressure or the acceptor overpressure was largely obscured by the secondary donor gas dynamics. This made the pressure-time records often hard to interpret. Nevertheless, the Critical Separation Distance can be expressed as a portion of the donor dimension, at least as long as the donor is centrally ignited. In addition to the donor explosion overpressure, the donor obstacle size appeared to be a possible determining parameter, at least in the low donor explosion overpressure range. Looking at Figure 11, we may conclude that in 3 tests the separation distance has been definitely less than
NTIAL
39
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 44
critical. In 4 tests, it was concluded that the separation distance was near but just more than critical. On the basis of Figure 11, some concrete guidance may be drawn up for the Critical Separation Distance in the range of phenomena covered in the experimental program. This guidance may be extrapolated outside this range on the basis of the understanding developed. Any practical guidance on the Critical Separation Distance, drawn up on the basis of this limited information, should be safe and conservative. Therefore, sufficiently safe margins, a factor of about 2 for instance, should be observed in the drafting of this guidance. On the basis of these considerations, the guidance with regard to the Critical Separation Distance may be as follows: A Critical Separation Distance between obstructed areas equal to of the donor dimension should be observed for any donor explosion overpressure of high strength (> 100 kPa). A Critical Separation Distance between obstructed areas equal to of the donor dimension should be observed for donor explosion overpressures of low strength (< 10kPa). Possibly, the donor obstacle diameter is a governing parameter in this range. A linear interpolation between these two data is proposed and has been indicated in Figure 17 together with the experimental observations. A connecting obstacle configuration of sufficient cross-sectional area between two obstructed areas, such as a pipe rack for instance, may substantially increase the Critical Separation Distance.
0.6
separation distance/donor size (-)
0.4
BE10 AE09
0.2
BM02 DM01 DP04 AM12
less than critical just more than critical more than critical
DM02
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
donor explosion overpressure (kPa)
Figure 17:
Proposed guidance for the Critical Separation Distance.
COMPA
40
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 45
The upper limit of the Critical Separation Distance equal to half the donor size is based on the observation that a stoichiometric hydrocarbon-air mixture does not expand beyond twice its original linear dimension on combustion, at least when the flame propagation process is spherically symmetric. However, it is uncertain whether this statement may be extrapolated to donor explosions with a directional flame propagation mode. Such gas explosions are characterised by a directional expansion process and consequently by blast effects with a preferential direction. This directionality is stronger for increasing flame speeds. In the limit of a gas detonation, almost all of the expansion is generated in the direction of flame propagation. It is interesting to note that the Critical Separation Distance that results from the intuitive definition of a congested area in the The Yellow Book (CPR-14E, 1997), being equal to 10 obstacle diameters, is not safe and conservative, in particular in the higher explosion overpressure range.
COMPAN 41
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 46
Additional information from experiments
The primary objective of the RIGOS research program was to develop guidance on the Critical Separation Distance. To this end, quite an extensive experimental program of donor-acceptor explosions has been run. In addition to the primary information on the critical separation distance, the program resulted in an interesting data set on donor-acceptor explosion behaviour from which additional information can be deduced. It has been observed, for instance, that the donor explosion may have a big and sometimes unexpected influence on the development of the acceptor explosion. The data also offers an opportunity to evaluate the performance of simple methods for vapour cloud explosion blast modelling under conditions substantially deviating from the conditions the methods were derived from.
6.1
Donor-acceptor explosion behaviour
6.1.1 Results The test set-up, maintained in almost the entire RIGOS program, consisted of two obstacle configurations separated by an empty space of varying length. Because the donor was centrally ignited, the donor explosion always developed approximately spherically symmetric. When the donor explosion ran out of fuel, the spherical symmetry was lost and the flame propagated across the separation gap towards the acceptor. In the acceptor, the flame propagated from one side to the other. In all cases the acceptor consisted of an obstacle configuration of exactly the same size and obstacle density. Because the donor explosion influences the conditions in the acceptor at the time of initiation, it can be expected that the donor explosion will influence the development and the strength of the acceptor explosion. To investigate this, the maximum explosion overpressures observed in the acceptor have been graphically represented as a function of the relative separation distance in Figure 18a for test series AE and AM and in Figure 18b for test series BE and BM. Figure 17a shows a general and surprising tendency that when the separation distance is diminished from large down to about half the donor size, the overpressure in the acceptor explosion reduces. The larger the donor size the bigger the reduction. In the AE and AM test series, a maximum reduction of the acceptor explosion overpressure was attained if the separation distance was approximately half the donor size, the range up to which the donor combustion products expand. A further reduction of the separation distance, on the other hand, resulted in a strong amplification of the acceptor explosion.
COM
42
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 47
Maximum Pressure Acceptor at opposite site of the donor, P9 series AE & AM

1000
overpressure (kPa)
100
10
1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
separation distance SD/DD

AE, donor size DD1 AM, donor size DD2 AE, donor size DD2 AM, donor size DD3
Figure 18a: Overpressure in the acceptor as function of the relative separation distance SD/DD for test series AE and AM.
RIGOS series BE and BM maximum source pressure in Acceptor
1000
Overpressure (kPa)
100
10
1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Separation distance SD/DD
BE, donor size DD1 BE, donor size DD3
BE, donor size DD2 BM, donor size DD3
Figure 18b: Overpressure in the acceptor as function of the separation distance SD for test series BE and BM.
COMPA
43
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 48
A similar trend but less systematic and pronounced comes forward from the results from the tests in the series BE in Figure 18b. Only the BE-tests with the small donor size DD1 seem to show a deviating behaviour of a continually increasing acceptor overpressure with reducing separation distance. 6.1.2 Analysis To be able to analyse the influence of the donor on the acceptor explosion, it is interesting to know what overpressure the acceptor would develop in the absence of a donor obstacle configuration. To this end, three additional tests without a donor, numbered as AM06, AM07 and AM08, were designed. The respective test set-ups are sketched in Figure 19 below. In test AM06, just the donor obstacle configuration was removed. The plastic sheet tent and ignition location were kept exactly identical to the tests AM02/03. Subsequently, in test AM07, only the ignition was replaced to the edge of the acceptor obstacle configuration. In test AM08, finally, the plastic sheet tent was reduced to the acceptor size.
AM02 / AM03
A
Plastic sheet
AM06
AM07
AM08
Figure 19: Table 9:
Design and numbering of the tests AM06, AM07 and AM08. Overpressures developed in the test AM06, AM07 and AM08.
Overpressure (kPa) AM06 AM07 AM08 2.4 5.2 6.7
COMPA
44
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 49
The results of the test AM06, AM07 and AM08 in terms of acceptor explosion overpressures have been tabulated in Table 9. The figures show that the slow combustion of a substantial amount of gas before initiating the acceptor substantially reduced the overpressure development in the acceptor. In test AM06, the entire contents of the plastic sheet tent was burnt before the acceptor initiated. Apparently, the buoyancy and consequently the ascent of the large cloud of combustion products entrained surrounding mixture and generated some backflow in the acceptor that hampered the development of the flame propagation in the acceptor. In both, the AM07 and AM08 test, the acceptor was directly initiated by which the described phenomena could only occur to a lesser extent. It is to be expected that particularly in the tests with the large separation distances the acceptor overpressures have been influenced by the phenomena described above. Because lift off by buoyancy is a relatively slow process, it can be expected that the acceptor overpressure reduction is most substantial in the methane tests with low flame velocities. In the ethylene tests on the other hand, the overpressure reduction by this effect is expected to be limited. However, the most substantial reductions of the acceptor explosion overpressure have been observed in the ethylene tests and for separation distances near half the donor size. These reductions must have a different origin. In this respect, it is important to realise that a gas explosion when the flame speed reduces or when it runs out of fuel develops an underpressure (a negative phase). The inertia of the expanding material causes overexpansion, underpressure and subsequently a backflow into the explosion centre. In particular when the explosion develops sphere-symmetrically like in the donor, the underpressure in the centre can be quite substantial. Flame propagation development is determined by the structure of the flow field in front of the flame. If this flow field is reduced or even reversed temporarily, it is well imaginable that the flame propagation development in the acceptor is hampered by the negative phase of the donor blast. This can only be the case, of course, when negative donor blast passage and flame propagation into the acceptor more or less coincide, i.e. for the small separation distances. A separation distance equal to half the donor size, which is the range up to which the donor expands upon combustion, assures a close connection between the gas dynamics of the donor and the initiation of the acceptor. This is demonstrated in Figure 20, which shows the overpressure development observed in 9 pressure gauges in test number AE7, the test in which the most substantial acceptor overpressure reduction was observed. Without the donor, the acceptor would have developed an overpressure of about 100 kPa where it is now only 19 kPa.
COMPL
45
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 50
PEB/PEI 014.10375
16/08/2000 AE7

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9
70
60
50
40
Pressure [kPa]
30
20
10
-10
-20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time [ms]
Figure 20:
Pressure development recorded by 9 gauges in experiment AE07 where the most substanstial acceptor overpressure reduction was observed.
It would be expected that an even bigger acceptor overpressure reduction effect could be obtained for separation distances slightly smaller than half the donor size. It is obvious that the larger the donor size relative to the acceptor size and the higher the donor overpressure, the bigger the influence of the donor explosion on the acceptor explosion. The considerations above would possibly enable a second definition of the Critical Separation Distance as being the separation distance within which the acceptor explosion is influenced by the donor. Concrete figures in this respect, however, are hard to give because within the scope of this experimental program in all tests the acceptor was influenced by the donor. Even in the tests a donor obstacle configuration was absent, the acceptor explosion was influenced by the ascent of the combustion products of the unobstructed mixture.
6.2
Validation of blast modelling methods
6.2.1 Approach The body of data on explosion overpressures and blast overpressures offers an opportunity to assess the performance of the simple methods for the modelling of vapour cloud explosion blast. The TNO fuel-air blast charts are used for the representation of blast effects. The TNO blast charts represent the blast wave overpres-
COM
46
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 51
sure and the positive phase duration dependent on the distance from an equivalent hemi-spherical fuel-air charge on the earths surface. The TNO blast charts are the result of numerical compilation of hemispherical explosion of an average stoichiometric hydrocarbon-air mixture for various constant flame speeds. Application of the TNO blast charts requires two parameters for input: A charge strength or an explosion overpressure; A charge energy. The charge strength or the explosion overpressure can be estimated through application of the GAME-correlation. The GAME-correlation relates the explosion overpressure to parameters, such as: size and density of the obstacle configuration, the fuel reactivity and the geometric scale of the experiment. The charge energy is determined according to the TNO recommendation by taking the combustion energy present within the obstructed area, assuming stoichiometry, i.e. the nominal energy. 6.2.2 The performance of the GAME-correlation
6.2.2.1 Results In order to assess the performance of the GAME-correlation on the experimentally observed explosion overpressures, the donor explosion overpressure as well as the acceptor explosion overpressures have been tabulated in the Tables 10a and 10b respectively together with the overpressures calculated with the GAMEcorrelation.
COMPAN 47
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 52
Table 10a:
Experimentally observed donor explosion overpressures compared to estimates on the basis of the GAME correlation.
VBR (%) 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 14 14 14 14 14 14 Lf (m) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.532 0.532 0.532 0.665 0.665 0.665 0.798 0.798 0.798 0.798 0.798 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.704 0.798 0.798 0.798 0.798 0.798 0.798 D (m) 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 Sl (m/s) 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.66 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 DPGAME (kPa) 29 29 29 29 29 64 64 64 64 17 17 17 17 17 30 30 30 30 3.4 3.4 3.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 10.4 10.4 10.4 2.7 2.7 17 64 30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 11 11 DPexp (kPa) 26.0 25.9 23.0 27.0 23.2 74.5 71.8 79.2 72.9 14.8 14.3 14.0 11.2 14.2 25.9 23.2 29.5 26.5 3.3 3.2 2.5 9.6 8.2 6.8 18.6 19.2 19.4 3.1 3.6 16 80 31 30 33 33 9.4 10 10 one blast 5.2 one blast
Exp. no. AE01 AE02 AE03 AE04 AE05 AE06 AE07 AE08 AE09 AM01 AM02 AM03 AM04 AM05 AM09 AM10 AM11 AM12 BE01 BE02 BE03 BE05 BE06 BE07 BE08 BE09 BE10 BM01 BM02 CM01 CE01 CP01 CP02 AP01 AP02 DP01 DP02 DP03 DP04 DM01 DM02
CO
48
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 53
100
DPGAME (kPa)
AE AM BE BM AP DP DM
10
1 1 10 100
DPexp (kPa)
Figure 21a: Performance of the GAME-correlation on the donor explosion overpressures.
In Figure 21a the calculated donor overpressures have been graphically represented dependent on the experimentally observed donor explosion overpressures. Because the GAME correlation was compiled from the MERGE-experiments, which are mostly identical and sometimes very similar to the RIGOS donor explosions, it is no surprise that the scatter of the data around the DPGAME = DPexp line is very similar to the scatter in the GAME-correlation (Figure 1). The only data of more interest in this respect are the data from the test series DP and DM. In the DP and DM test series the donor consisted of a regular B-type obstacle configuration of maximum size DD3, completed with a regular vertical configuration of 24 tubes of 114 mm diameter (Figure 7). The volume blockage of such a mix of obstacles in the donor is equal to 14%. The average obstacle diameter of this obstacle mix was calculated from the average hydraulic diameter and equal to 0.043 m. The average hydraulic obstacle diameter has been defined as 4 times the ratio of the summed volume and the summed surface area of the obstacles, assuming they merely consist of tubes, i.e.:
DH = 4
V A
tubes tubes
The use of the average hydraulic diameter for a mix of obstacles of various size was recommended in the GAMES final report (Mercx, 1998) as a result of practical applications of the GAME-correlation to realistic plants. It appears that the GAME correlation, applied according to the GAMES recommendations on configurations of obstacles of various size in the DP and DM series, gives a conservative result. This finding is in line with results from the GAME-
COMPAN 49
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 54
project (Van den Berg and Eggen, 1996), which suggested that any lack of homogeneity in a configuration of obstacles tends to lower explosion overpressures. The acceptor explosion is characterised by a process of directional flame propagation from one end of the configuration to the other. This is far from the centrally ignited experiments, the GAMEcorrelation was compiled from. In addition, it has been shown that the acceptor explosion overpressures are substantially influenced by the donor explosions. It is to be expected, therefore, that the performance of the GAME-correlation on the acceptor explosion overpressures will be much worse than on the donor explosions. It shows in Table 10b and its graphical representation in Figure 21b. Only for some of the ethylene tests, the correlation correctly predicts the order of magnitude of explosion overpressure. The less reactive the fuel, the bigger the overestimation of the overpressure by the GAME-correlation.
50
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 55
Table 10b:
Exp. no. AE01 AE02 AE03 AE04 AE05 AE06 AE07 AE08 AE09 AM01 AM02 AM03 AM04 AM05 AM06 AM07 AM08 AM09 AM10 AM11 AM12 BE01 BE02 BE03 BE05 BE06 BE07 BE08 BE09 BE10 BM01 BM02 CM01 CE01 CP01 CP02 AP01 AP02 DP01 DP02 DP03 DP04 DM01 DM02
Acceptor explosion overpressures compared to GAME correlation.

VBR (%) 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Lf (m) 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 D (m) 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 Sl (m/s) 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.66 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 DPGAME (kPa) 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 30 30 30 115 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 30 30 DPexp (kPa) 75 95 109 84 >178 33 20 56 430 3.2 3.3 2.9 1.9 4.7 2.4 5.2 5.8 1.8 1.6 5.5 8.5 110 144 40 94 89 128 135 48 106 2.4 2.4 4 >430 6 10 5 8 9 6.2 8.8 One blast 3 One blast
COM
51
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 56
ethylene
100
propane methane
DPGAME (kPa)
10
1 1 10 100
DPexp (kPa)
Figure 21b: Performance of the GAME-correlation on the acceptor explosion overpressures.
The GAME-correlation was applied to the acceptor explosions according to the recommendations developed during the GAMES-program (Mercx, 1998). The acceptor consisted of an A-type obstacle configuration of medium size DD2 and kept constant throughout the experimental program. The flamepath length Lf was calculated from the radius of a hemisphere of a volume equal to the volume of the acceptor obstacle configuration. 6.2.2.2 Analysis The development of a deflagrative gas explosion is largely determined by the feedback coupling in the interaction of the flame with the structure of its selfgenerated expansion flow field ahead of the flame. The feedback is triggered by turbulence generative boundary conditions. The feedback coupling and consequently the self-amplification of the flame propagation process is optimum when a maximum velocity in the gas (and consequently a maximum turbulence intensity) is generated by the burning. In other words: when the ratio of the velocity in the gas ahead of the flame and the flame fronts burning speed is maximum, the feedback coupling is optimum and the self-amplification capability of the process is maximum. An optimum feedback coupling is obtained when the combustion products behind the flame front cannot expand backward. This is the case in a spherically symmetric process such as in the experiments the GAME-correlation was derived from. Then the combustion products in the flame bubble are stagnant and the expansion is fully utilised to generate flow ahead of the flame. When the mixture in an obstructed area is not ignited in the centre but at an edge like in the acceptor explosions, the flame finds turbulence generative conditions only inside the obstructed area. Then there is no gas dynamic symmetry and the
CO
52
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 57
combustion products are not stagnant but expand backward away from the obstacle configuration. Then the feedback coupling is not optimum and the selfamplification capability of the process is substantially less than in the spheresymmetric case. It will be obvious, therefore, that a correlation compiled from centrally ignited explosion cannot perform satisfactorily on edge-ignited gas explosions. In addition, Figure 21b shows that despite the constancy of the acceptor during the program, the experimentally observed acceptor explosion overpressures varied over almost an order of magnitude. The acceptor explosion overpressure is dependent on the separation distance - strongly influenced by the donor explosion. The data in Figure 21b show that the estimation of acceptor explosion overpressures on the basis of a correlation compiled from spherically developing explosions completely fails. In view of the theoretical considerations above and in Chapter 5.1.1, it must be no surprise that the estimation of the overpressure of a process of edge-ignited, directional flame propagation requires a correlation of experimental data specific to that geometry. 6.2.3 The charge energy The original TNO recommendation for the estimation of the explosion energy was to take the nominal energy, which is the full combustion energy originally present within the obstructed region and assuming stoichiometry. The experimental data, generated in the RIGOS-program, enable validation of this recommendation. If both the explosion overpressures and blast overpressures are measured in an experiment, a fit of the respective blast decay curve of the TNO blast chart enables a calculation to be made of the amount of energy required. If this amount of effective energy is divided by the full amount of energy present within the congested area (the nominal energy), the result is an energy ratio or an energy efficiency. As part of the EMERGE-work (Mercx, et al., 1996), such an exercise has been performed on the MERGE experimental data. The result has been reproduced in Figure 22a. Figure 22a shows the effective energy ratio observed in almost all of the small (S), medium (M) and large-scale (L) MERGE-experiments as a function of the explosion overpressure. The data exhibit quite some scatter. This is due to the calculation of the effective charge energies from the observed blast overpressures, assuming perfect spherical symmetry. The blast overpressure is roughly proportional to the cube root of the charge energy. Therefore, a small scatter in blast overpressures observed translates into a big scatter in effective energies computed. Nevertheless, Figure 22a shows a clear trend. When the explosion overpressure is high, the amount of energy required to model the blast observed, is approximately 100% of the amount of energy present within the congested area. If the explosion overpressure is low, on the other hand, the energy required is no more than 10 to 20% of the amount of energy present within the congested area.
COM
53
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 58
Figure 22a: Portion of available energy required to model the blasts observed in the MERGE-experiments, calculated on the basis of the TNO-blast charts (Mercx, et al., 1996).
The origin of this finding is in the nature of the blast charts and can be simply explained. The blast charts have been compiled under the assumption that the full charge is consumed at the same constant flame speed. The gas explosions in the MERGE-obstacle configurations show a different behaviour as already described in Chapter 5.1.1. The flow structure (turbulence) developed in the flow in front of flame controls the burning. Turbulence enhances combustion. An increasing burning speed intensifies the expansion flow. Increasing flow velocities go hand in hand with intensifying turbulence, which again enhances combustion again etc. etc. Within a centrally ignited obstacle configuration, therefore, the flame propagates in a spherical flow field consisting of a continuously intensifying overpressure, flow velocity and turbulence field. As soon as the flame leaves the obstacle configuration, the flame runs into a decaying turbulence field, by which the burning speed and the overpressure drop. Immediately after the flame leaves the congested area, it has developed its maximum overpressure. At that moment, the amount of combustion products present within the hemispherical flame is more or less homogeneously compressed. If the maximum overpressure is low (nearly atmospheric) at the moment the flame leaves the obstacle configuration, only 10 to 20% of the mixture originally inside the obstructed area has been consumed. The rest has been expanded out of the obstructed area before it is consumed at lower and lower burning speeds and does not contribute to the maximum explosion overpressure. As the expansion ratio of stoichiometric hydrocarbon-air mixture is about 7 to 8, at low (near-atmospheric) explosion overpressure an energy ratio of about 12 to 15% should be the lower limit. This is in line with the experimental observations. If on the other hand, the explosion overpressures increase, a growing portion of the mixture originally inside is burned inside the obstructed area. Therefore, it is to be
CO
54
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 59
expected that the contributing energy ratio is growing for increasing explosion overpressure, ending up to 100%. The above considerations hold only when the cloud extends over the full obstructed area. If, on the other hand, the obstructed area is larger than the cloud, the cloud may fully expand and burn within the obstructed area regardless the explosion overpressure. In that case always 100% of the energy will effectively contribute to the blast regardless the explosion overpressure. The same procedure applied to the donor explosions in the RIGOS-project will undoubtedly result in very similar conclusions. It is more interesting to perform such an exercise on the acceptor explosion overpressure data. In the acceptor explosions, the flame propagates from one end of the congested area to the other. Here, the flame is not spherical and not self confined. Then, there is no homogeneously pressurised bubble of combustion products inside a spherical flame that starts to depressurise as soon as the flame leaves the congested area. Here only a region near the flame is pressurised to an extent determined by the competing effects of pressure production the burning rate and pressure loss by the expansion. Therefore, it is to be expected that the energy, required for the modelling of blast of the acceptor explosions, would be substantially lower than for the donor, at least in the lower explosion overpressure range. In the Tables 11a to 11e, the acceptor explosion overpressures as well as the acceptor blast overpressures observed in various directions and at various distances, have been tabulated. In addition, each experimentally observed blast overpressure is accompanied by the portion (%) of the nominal energy required for its modelling through application of the TNO-blast charts. The nominal acceptor energy is calculated as the volume of the A-type obstacle configuration of medium size (DD2) times the heat of combustion of an average stoichiometric hydrocarbon-air mixture (3.5 MJ/m3) and is equal to 4.88 MJ.
CO
55
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 60
Table 11a:
Acceptor explosion overpressures and blast overpressures observed in the AE-test series as well as the % of the nominal energ required for modelling.
Distance Acceptor (m) 3 5.29 6 3 5.82 6 3 6 6.35 3 4.76 6 3 4.499 6 12 3 5.816 6 12 3 5.112 6 12 3 6 6.52 12 3 4.76 6 12 Acceptor blast overpressure (kPa) and energy ratio (%) Donor-acceptor Cross Acceptor-donor Direction Direction direction 35 15.6 48.5 15 43 15 40 13.1 71 18 5.8 10.4 4.8 2.2 4 2 1 21.8 10.2 3.7 ## ## ## 43% 51% 73% 46% 48% 45 54% 35% 100% 25.3 65% 38% 8.4% 2.5 7.8% 6.9% 2.2% 1.1 2.2% 2.2% 15% 21% 2.6 12% ## 0.7% 0.2% 1.1% 56% 13 4.3% 5 34 32% 8 11.5 3.2% 6.2 36.5 43% 9.5 8.4% 6.8% 10% 2.2%
Test DP0 (kPa) AE01 75 AE02 95 AE03 110 AE04 84 AE05 250
AE06 34
AE07 19.5
AE08 55
AE09 550
## AE09 separation distance less than critical; no separate acceptor blast
CO
56
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 61
Table 11b:
Acceptor explosion overpressures and blast overpressures observed in the AM-test series as well as the % of the nominal energ required for modelling.
Distance Acceptor (m) 3 6 6.52 12 3 5.82 6 12 3 5.11 6 12 3 4.76 6 12 3 5.82 6 12 3 5.82 6 12 3 5.82 6 12 3 6 6.344 12 3 5.464 6 12 3 5.024 6 12 3 4.804 6 12 Acceptor blast overpressure (kPa) and energy ratio (%) Donor-acceptor Cross Acceptor-donor Direction Direction direction 1.05 0.52 0.3 1.1 0.46 0.26 0.5 0.21 0.05 1 0.7 0.4 0.69 0.3 0.17 1.8 0.95 0.45 1.95 1.05 0.55 0.5 0.3 0.1 ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 6.2% 6.1% 0.44 9.3% 7.2% 0.3 4.2% 6.1% 3.2% 0.18 2.0% 0.2% 1.8% 1.4 4.8% 7% 4.1% 0.38 2.8% 4.1% 8% 0.9 9% 7.4% 6.9% 1.15 8.4% 9.4% 3.7% 6.6% 0.3 2.1% ## 7.8% 10% 7% 5.1% 20% 0.8% 1.1% 4.7%
Test DP0 (kPa) AM01 3.2
AM02 AM03 3.2 AM04 1.9
AM05 4.7
AM06 2.4
AM07 5.2
AM08 5.9
AM09 1.8
AM10 1.6
AM11 5.5
AM12 8.5
## - AM10 acceptor blast not measurable. - AM11 and AM12 acceptor overpressure and blast obscured by donor secondary wave.
57
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 62
Table 11c:
Acceptor explosion overpressures and blast overpressures observed in the BE-test series as well as the % of the nominal energ required for modelling.
Distance Acceptor (m) 3 5.3 6 12 3 4.768 6 12 3 6 6.364 12 3 5.699 6 12 3 5.034 6 12 3 4.702 6 12 3 6 6.098 12 3 5.3 6 12 3 4.901 6 12 Acceptor blast overpressure (kPa) and energy ratio (%) Donor-acceptor Cross Acceptor-donor Direction Direction direction 40 14 4.8 55 16.5 5 9.7 4.2 2 42 14.8 4 38.5 12.8 4.5 55 16 5.2 49 18 5.8 16.2 6.6 3.2 37.5 14.8 5 41% 8 39% 23% 74% 15 55% 26% 4.6% 3.7% 3.5 3.8% 52% 8.4 44% 14% 45% 6 33% 20% 77% 14 51% 29% 60% 66% 8 39% 9.1% 3.8 6.1% 9% 36% 11.2 44% 26% 13% 1.2% 12% 19% 3.1% 11% 2.7% 23% 7.5%
Test DP0 (kPa) BE01 110
BE02 144
BE03 39.6
BE05 94
BE06 89
BE07 128
BE08 135
BE09 48
BE10 106
COMPAN 58
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 63
Table 11d:
Acceptor explosion overpressures and blast overpressures observed in the BM-test series as well as the % of the nominal energ required for modelling.
Distance Acceptor (m) 3 4.9 6 12 3 4.7 6 12 Acceptor blast overpressure (kPa) and energy ratio (%) Donor-acceptor Cross Acceptor-donor Direction direction Direction 0.74 0.32 0.18 0.54 0.2 0.11 4.9% 0.3 3.2% 4.7% 2% 0.33 0.8% 1.1% 1.8% 1.4%
Test DP0 (kPa) BM01 2.44
BM02 2.4
Table 11e:
Acceptor explosion overpressures and blast overpressures observed in the AP, CP, DP and the DM-test series as well as the % of the nominal energ required for modelling.
Distance Acceptor (m) 3 5.816 6 8.816 12 14.816 3 5.112 6 8.112 12 14.112 3 5.112 6 8.112 12 14.112 3 5.112 6 8.112 12 14.112 Acceptor blast overpressure (kPa) and energy ratio (%) Donor-acceptor Cross Acceptor-donor Direction Direction direction 1.2 0.5 0.3 2.2 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.2 2.6 1.2 0.8 2.6 1.4% 2.4% 3.9% 2.9% 2.9% 1.5% 0.8% 0.4% 3.3% 2.6% 6.1% 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8% 0.4 0.7% 0.2 0.7% 0.1 0.6% 0.8 1.0% 0.6 1.5% 0.4 0.4% 0.5 0.4% 0.2 0.4% 0.1 1.1% 1.2 2.0% 0.8 2.6% 0.6 4.2% 1.9% 1.6% 0.08% 0.1% 0.5% 2.4% 1.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7%
Test DP0 (kPa) AP01 5
AP02 8
CP01 6
CP02 10
CO
59
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 64
Table 11e:
Acceptor explosion overpressures and blast overpressures observed in the AP, CP, DP and the DM-test series as well as the % of the nominal energ required for modelling (continued).
Distance Acceptor (m) 3 5.3 6 8.3 12 14.3 3 5.1 6 8.1 12 14.1 3 4.9 6 7.9 12 13.9 Acceptor blast overpressure (kPa) and energy ratio (%) Donor-acceptor Cross Acceptor-donor Direction direction Direction 2.4 1.2 0.6 1.5 0.7 0.3 2.4 1.2 0.6 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 2.7% 2.1% 1.3% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.5% 0.8 0.7% 0.5 1% 0.3 0.1% Defect 0.2% ? 0.4% ? 1.4% 1.2 2.2% 0.7 2.2% 0.3 0.7% 1.7% 2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
Test DP0 (kPa) DP01 9
DP02 6.2
DP03 8.8
In Figure 22b, the calculated energy efficiencies for the acceptor explosions have been represented dependent on the explosion overpressures.
100
80
energy ratio (%)
60
40
20
0 0 50 100 150 200 250
explosion overpressure (kPa)
Figure 22b: Portion of nominal acceptor energy (4.88 MJ), required to model the acceptor blast overpressures, dependent on the acceptor explosion overpressure
CO
60
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 65
The scatter in the effective energy ratios in Figure 22b for the acceptor explosions is even much bigger than in Figure 22a for the donor explosions. A reason for the bigger scatter may be that here the acceptor explosion overpressures are strongly influenced by the donor explosions. In addition, because the flame propagation in the acceptor is edge-initiated, the acceptor blast is far from spherically symmetric. Substantial differences in blast overpressures have been observed in the different directions translating into even bigger differences in effective energy. Nevertheless, the Figures 22a and 22b show a very similar and clear trend. The portion of the available energy required to model the blast grows for increasing explosion overpressure. Generally speaking, the effective portion of the nominal energy required to model the acceptor blasts is lower than that for the spherically developing donor explosions. Where the lower limit for the donor explosions is 12 to 15%, theoretically speaking, the lower limit for the acceptor explosions is lower still. Values of a fraction of 1% have been observed in many experiments. 6.2.4 Modelling of the tests with Separation Distance less than critical The results of the tests with a separation distance clearly less than critical deserve a special attention because here a separate treatment of donor and acceptor is not justified. Test AE09 This test is defined by an A-type donor of medium size DD2 and a Separation distance equal to 0.25DD The damage to the acceptor observed in this test is a strong indication that the ethylene-air mixture detonated locally at the end of the flame propagation through the obstacle configuration. The same holds for experiment CE01, in which as a consequence of the presence of a connecting obstacle configuration detonation transition occurred at a very early stage in the acceptor. Although a separated pressure development was observed in experiment AE09 witness the pressure-time records P1 P7, the acceptor blast overtook the the donors in the donor-acceptor direction. In test CE01, the overpressure seemed to amplify continuously in the donor, the connecting configuration and the acceptor. Nevertheless, separate blasts were observed in the acceptor-donor direction. This suggests application of the Multi-Energy concept dependent on the direction of flame propagation. By doing so, the blasts in the donor-acceptor direction should be modelled with a summed energy and an equivalent charge position in the centre between donor and acceptor. The two separate blasts in acceptor-donor direction, on the other hand, may be modelled by separate charges positioned at the respective locations of the donor and the acceptor centres. The calculated and the experimentally observed overpressures in the tests AE09 and CE01 have been tabulated in the Tables 12a and 12b. The respective charge energies are: Donor energy = 4.88 MJ; Acceptor energy = 4.88 MJ; Summed energy = 11 MJ (donor+acceptor+interspace).
CO
61
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 66
Table 12a:
Calculated and experimentally observed blast overpressures in test AE09.
AE09 blast overpressures (kPa) in donor-acceptor direction (B2, B3 and B4) E=11 MJ, DPo > 550 kPa Distance from centre Donor + acceptor (m) MEM Experiment
3.87 71 136 6.87 27 32 12.87 11 12 AE09 blast overpressures (kPa) in acceptor-donor direction (B1)
Distance from centre Donor/acceptor (m)
Donor blast E=4.88 MJ, DPo = 73 kPa MEM Experiment 49 32
Acceptor blast E=4.88 MJ, DPo > 550 kPa MEM Experiment
3 4.76
31
52
Table 12b:
Calculated and experimentally observed blast overpressures in test CM01.
CM01 blast overpressures (kPa) in donor-acceptor direction (B2, B3 and B4) E=12.2 MJ, DPo > 550 kPa Distance from centre MEM Experiment Donor + acceptor (m) 4.05 70 > 60 7.05 27 24 13.05 11 Defect CE01 blast overpressures (kPa) in acceptor-donor direction (B1)
Distance from centre Donor/acceptor (m)
Donor blast E=4.88 MJ, DPo = 80 kPa MEM Experiment 52 40
Acceptor blast E=4.88 MJ, DPo > 550 kPa MEM Experiment
3 5.1
28
47
A reason for the substantial underestimation of the blast overpressures in the stations B2, B3 and B4 is the substantial directionality in the near field in donoracceptor direction. The directionality appears to vanish quickly with increasing distance. In the modelling of blast overpressures in the acceptor-donor direction, on the other hand, the substantial underestimation of the acceptor blast is a striking result because, due to directionality effects, an overestimation was expected. A plausible explanation may be that, probably, transition to detonation in the acceptor took place before the donor explosion ran out of fuel. The consequence may be then that after transition the detonation wave quickly consumed all remaining flammable mixture including the mixture originating from the donor. Transition to detonation
COMPA
62
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 67
may lead to an irregular behaviour that leads to extremely anomalous blast overpressure distribution in the near-field. A basic assumption in the Multi-Energy concept is that the unobstructed mixture in an atmospherically dispersing vapour cloud is too inhomogeneously mixed to maintain a detonation. In this respect the conditions in a realistic scenario differ substantially from the experimental conditions in the RIGOS-test series, where the mixture is deliberately homogenised. Another experiment in which the separation distance was clearly less than critical is tes DP04. A test with a donor of type A and large size, completed with 114 mm diameter tubes. The fuel was propane and the separation distance was equal to 0.125DD. In the Table 12c the calculated as well as the experimentally observed blast overpressures have been tabulated. The calculation was performed on the basis of the full summed nominal energy and the equivalent fuel-air charge was positioned in the centre between donor and acceptor.
Table 12c: Calculated and experimentally observed blast overpressures in test DP04.
DP04 blast overpressures (kPa) in donor-acceptor direction (B4, B5 and B6) E=12.8 MJ, DPo = 19 kPa Distance from centre Donor + acceptor (m) MEM Experiment
3.8 15 5 6.8 8 2.8 12.8 4.5 1.6 DP04 blast overpressures (kPa) in acceptor-donor direction (B1, B2 and B3) E=12.8 MJ, DPo = 19 kPa
Distance from centre Donor + acceptor (m) 3.9 6.9 12.9
MEM 15 8 4.5
Experiment 5 2.6 1.2
The Table shows a substantial overestimation of the blastoverpressures and hardly any directionality. Application of an energy efficiency of 4% would reproduce the experimentally observed pressures very well. 6.2.5 Directionality in the acceptor blast
6.2.5.1 General Blast effects from accidental vapour cloud explosions are mostly highly directional. In a realistic scenario, a vapour cloud mostly ignites where the dispersing and drifting flammable mixture happens to find an open fire, a spark or a hot spot. In such a scenario, the cloud is consumed by a flame that propagates from one end
COMP
63
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 68
of the cloud to the other. When the flame propagation process has a preferential direction, the resulting blast effects are directional. Here, the acoustic volume source analogue, described in Chapter 5.1.1, may contribute in making things comprehensible. If a propagating flame is considered a moving volume source, the overpressure piles up in the direction of flame propagation while the overpressure rarefies in the opposite direction. In this way, the directionality in the blast effects can be considered the consequence of an acoustic Doppler-effect. The acoustic analogue also explains that effects of directionality in the blast must be stronger as the flame speed, i.e. the overpressure in the gas explosion is higher. For gas explosions of very high strength or even detonation, when the flame speed is supersonic relative to the pressure gauges, the major portion of the blast is directed in the direction of the flame propagation. In the opposite direction hardly any blast effects are to be expected, at least in the immediate vicinity of the explosion process. With increasing distance to the blast source, however, the directionality in the blast will gradually vanish. It is well known that blast wave propagation in free space has a natural tendency to a spherical symmetry. A highly directional blast wave has, therefore, the tendency to equalise its strength over it surface. The equalizing tendency is stronger as the blast wave is stronger. Blast from a high-explosive detonation, for instance, will attain a nearly spherical shape within a few characteristic charge dimensions (Baker, 1973). Blast from a gas detonation will have a nearly sphere-symmetric strength within about 10 equivalent charge radii (Moen et al., 1983). Simple blast modelling methods make use of blast charts. Implicit to the use of blast charts is the assumption that the blast effects are fully symmetric around a blast centre. This is, generally speaking, a drastic simplification, at least for gas explosions of high strength and in the near-field. Generally speaking, therefore, the performance of simple blast modelling methods is much better in the far field than in the near field. The more so considering the fuel-air blast charts, which show that in the far field the blast parameters nearly are independent of the explosion overpressure if it is higher than 50 kPa. Because acceptor explosions in the RIGOS-program are characterised by a process of directional flame propagation, the data offer an opportunity to study the asymmetry in the blast and to evaluate the performance of symmetrical blast modelling on the basis of blast charts. 6.2.5.2 Results The idea to study the directionality of the blast effects in more detail came forward during the sponsor meeting halfway the project. Consequently, the test series AE, AM, BE and BM, that were already finished by that time, were not very well equipped for the recording of directionality in the blast. Only the test series performed from that sponsor meeting on, namely: the series AP, CP, DP and DM were appropriately equipped to this end. Nine blast pressure gauges were positioned around the donor-acceptor test layout according to Figure 4b in three directions:
64
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 69
At 3, 6 and 12 m distance from the donor centre in the acceptor-donor direction. At 3, 6 and 12 m distance from the acceptor centre in the acceptor-donor direction. At 3, 6 and 12 m distance from the acceptor centre perpendicular to the donoracceptor axis. Unfortunately, the explosion overpressures observed in the well-equipped tests were all relatively low and, consequently, so are the directionality effects. The most pronounced effects of directionality, that occurred for the higher acceptor explosion overpressures in the AE and BE test series, have only poorly been recorded. The acceptor explosion overpressures as well as the acceptor blast overpressures as far as observed have been summarised in the Tables 9a - 9e. In many of the experiments, the separation distance was relatively small. The consequence is that often the acceptor overpressure is obscured by the donor gas dynamics. Such a mix of symmetric (donor) and directional (acceptor) effects is hard to interprete. Therefore, directionality effects in the blast do not come forward in a systematic way that can be analysed quantitatively. In addition the scatter in the data is substantial. Nevertheless, on the average the data in the Tables 9a-9e show the following trends. A direct indication for the directionality in the acceptor blast is, of course, that in the direction of flame propagation substantially higher blast overpressures are observed than in the opposite and cross direction. An indirect indication is in the calculated effective energy ratios, which are higher in the direction of flame propagation than in the other directions. 6.2.6 Conclusions validation blast modelling Vapour cloud explosion blast prediction by simple methods is based on highly idealised modelling and experimentation. The highly idealised blast model (charts) assuming sphere-symmetry requires input for two parameters: an explosion strength (overpressure); an amount of contributing energy. Methods for estimating these input parameters have been derived from highly idealised experiments that can be characterised as follows: Threedimensional regularly spaced obstacle configuration; Central ignition; Spherically symmetric flame propagation. If a problem exhibits the highly idealised conditions the methods were derived from, the explosion strength can be estimated within a factor of about 2 (Figure 20a). If the amount of contributing energy is appropriately corrected for the extent of the obstructed area relative to the cloud, the blast overpressures at a distance of the explosion can be predicted within about a similar accuracy. However, generally speaking realistic vapour cloud explosion scenarios do not at all satisfy the idealisations the modelling was based on. Vapour cloud explosions in
COMP
65
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 70
realistic scenarios mostly develop in irregular obstacle configurations (plant) and are mostly ignited where the dispersing and drifting cloud finds some open fire or hot object. The flame propgation process mostly has a preferential direction, from one end of the cloud to the other. The consequence is that the resulting blast effects are highly directional, at least in the near-field. Assessment of the explosion strength prediction for less idealised explosions in the acceptor (Figure 20b) shows that, generally speaking, the predicted explosion overpressures are an order of magnitude higher than experimentally observed. Assessment of the amount of effectively contributing energy in the acceptor explosions shows that the portion of the nominal energy that effectively contributes to the blast in edge-ignited vapour cloud explosions can be substantially lower than that in centrally ignited explosions. Energy ratios of a fraction of a percent have been observed in the lower explosion overpressures range. This observation implicates that blast prediction for low-strength gas explosions on the basis of the nominal energy may result in an another order of magnitude too high blast overpressures. The conclusion can only be that a proper prediction of blast from vapour cloud explosions with a directional mode of flame propagation requires methods specially tailored to that explosion type.
CO
66
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 71
Conclusions
The main objective of the RIGOS-program was to develop practical guidance to be used in application of the Multi-Energy Method in realistic problems. Looking back over the experimental program one may conclude that the AE, BE, AM and BM-test series were orientational. Subsequently, the AP, CP, CE, DP and DM test series addressed more specific questions. Unfortunately, not the full range of conditions of concern could be covered. The range of explosion overpressures higher than 100 kPa, where the most substantial critical separation distances are to be expected, had to be left out of consideration. Nevertheless, the experimental program resulted in a good understanding of the phenomena and some concrete indications for the Critical Separation Distance in the low explosion overpressure range. On the basis of this information, concrete guidance concerning the Critical Separation Distance was proposed. The guidance was extrapolated to the high explosion overpressure range on the basis of common sense. The applicability of this guidance to donor explosions with a directional mode of flame propagation is uncertain. Compared to this new guidance, the Critical Separation Distance intuitively suggested in the Yellow Book (CPR-14E,1997), being equal to 10 obstacle diameters, is not always safe and conservative in particular in the high explosion overpressure range. The experiments in the C-test series showed that a connecting obstacle configuration of sufficient cross-sectional dimensions - such as a pipe rack between units of a chemical plant - may substantially increase the critical separation distance in the low explosion overpressure range. In the high explosion overpressure range, a connecting obstacle configuration may transmit the flame propagation process without decay over any separation distance from donor to acceptor. The experiments in the D-test series gave an indication that larger obstacles in the donor tend to a larger critical separation distance. This can be explained as follows: Larger obstacles induce eddies of larger scale in their wakes and thereby a slower turbulence decay. The consequence is that the burning speed of the flame will reduce less quickly on leaving a donor with larger obstacles. The experiments showed that, even when the separation distances were larger than critical, the donor explosions substantially influenced the development of the acceptor explosions. At separation distances only slightly larger than critical, a substantial suppression of the acceptor explosion was observed. The suppression effect appeared bigger as the donor size was larger and the donor explosion overpressure was higher. The explanation for this surprising phenomenon is that the underpressure and the backflow during the negative phase of the donor hampered the development of the flame propagation process in the acceptor.
COM
67
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 72
The donor-acceptor experiments in the RIGOS-program allowed validation of the simple vapour cloud explosion blast prediction methodology on data from gas explosions substantially different from those they were derived from. The blast prediction methodology requires input of two parameters: an explosion overpressure and an effective energy. The experimental data show that the GAME-correlation applied to the acceptor explosions substantially overestimates the explosion overpressures, in particular in the low overpressure range. The effective energies, calculated from the observed acceptor blast overpressures, show that the portion of the nominal acceptor energy effectively contributing to the blast is low, in particular for the low explosion overpressure range. Evaluation of the results shows that if the input parameters for prediction are determined according to the presently recommended guidelines, the blast overpressures from the acceptor explosions may be overestimated by more than an order in magnitude. In addition, the simple blast modelling methodology cannot take any effects of directionality of the acceptor blast into account. The experimental data show that the directionality in the acceptor blast is substantial, in particular in the high explosion overpressure range.
COM
68
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 73
References
Auton, T.R. and Pickles, J.H. (1978a), A mathematical model for unconfined vapour cloud explosions, General Electricity Research Laboratories, Laboratory note no. RD/L/N 5/78. Auton, T.R. and Pickles, J.H. (1978b), The calculation of blast waves from the explosion of pancake-shaped vapour clouds, General Electricity Research Laboratories, Laboratory note no. RD/L/N 210/78. Baker, W.E. (1973), Explosions in air, Iniversity of Texas Press, Austin, London, 1973. Catlin, C.A. (1991), Scale effects on the external combustion caused by venting of a confined explosion, Combustion and Flame,Vol.83,(1991),pp.399-411. Catlin, C.A. and Johnson, D.M. (1992), Experimental scaling of the flame acceleration phase of an explosion by changing fuel gas reactivity, Combustion and Flame,Vol.88,(1992),pp.15-27. CPR-14E (1997), Methods for the calculation of the physical effects due to releases of hazardous materials, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1997 (Yellow Book). De Bruijn, P.C.J. and Van Ierschot, P.G.A. (2002), RIGOS Experimental results, TNO report, PML 2002-C51, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 2002. Eggen, J.B.M.M. (1995), GAME: development of Guidance for the Application of the Multi-Energy method, TNO report, PML 1995-C44, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, August 1995.
COM
69
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 74
Lighthill, J. (1978), Waves in Fluids, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1978. Mercx, W.P.M., editor (1994a), Modelling and Experimental Research into Gas Explosions, Overall final report of the project MERGE, CEC contract STEP-CT-0111(SSMA), European Commission, Directorate General XII, Brussels, Belgium, 1994. Mercx, W.P.M.; Van den Berg, A.C. and Mouilleau, Y. (1994b), Modelling and experimental research into gas explosions, Contribution of TNO-PML to the MERGE project, TNO report, PML 1993-C137, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 1994. Mercx, W.P.M.; Van den Berg, A.C.and Van Dongen, Ph. (1996), Extended Modelling and experimental research into gas explosions, Contribution of TNO-PML to the MERGE project, TNO report, PML 1996-C16, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 1996. Mercx, W.P.M., editor (1997), Extended Modelling and Experimental Research into Gas Explosions, Final summary report of the project EMERGE, CEC contract EV5VCT930274 European Commission, Directorate General XII, Brussels, Belgium, 1997. Mercx, W.P.M.; Van den Berg, A.C. and Leeuwen, D. (1998), Application of correlations to quantify the source strength of vapour cloud explosions in realistic situations, Final report for the project GAMES, TNO report, PML 1998-C53, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 1998. Moen, I.O., et al., (1983), Blast from non-spherical fuel-air explosions, 8th Int.Symp.on Military Appl.of Blast Simulation, Spiez, Switzerland, 20-24 June, 1983. Strehlow, R.A. (1981), Blast wave from deflagrative explosions: an acoustic approach, 13th AIChE Loss Prevention Symposium, Philadelphia (PA), 1981. Taylor, P.H. and Hirst, W.J.S. (1988), The scaling of vapour cloud explosions: a fractal model for size and fuel type, Poster presented at the 22nd Symp.(Int.) on Combustion, Seattle (WA), USA, 1988.
COM
70
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 75
Van den Berg, A.C. (1985), The Multi-Energy Method, a framework for vapour cloud explosion blast prediction, Journal of Hazardous Materials, volume 12, pp 1 - 10, 1985. Van den Berg, A.C. and Eggen, J.B.M.M. (1996), GAME, Guidance for the Application of the Multi-Energy method, The second International Specialists Meeting on Fuel-Air Explosions, Bergen, Norway, June 27-28, 1996. Wingerden, C.J.M. van (1988), Investigation into the blast produced by vapour cloud explosions in partially confined areas, TNO report, PML 1988-C195, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, December 1988 (DISCOE project).
COMPAN 71
TNO report
PML 2002-C50 76
Authentication
A.C. van den Berg Author/Project leader
A.L. Mos Author
Dr. J. Weerheijm Research Co-ordinator
Dr. L.H.J. Absil Group leader
COMPANY72
SUMMARY:
SUMMARY:
This report describes the RIGOS-research program. The objective of this program was to develop guidance on the Multi-Energy Critical Separation Distance. The experimental program resulted in a limited number of concrete indications with respect to the Critical Separation Distance on the basis of which concrete guidance was drawn up. Apart from this primary objective, the RIGOS program led to a substantial amount of additional and interesting information. The data show, for instance, that for separation distances somewhat larger than critical, the donor explosion may largely suppress the acceptor explosion. The gas dynamics of the donors negative phase could explain this surprising observation. The experimental data also gave the opportunity to validate current simple blast modelling methodologies on the acceptor gas explosion data.
TNO Prins Maurits Laboratory Report no.: Assignment no(s): Date: Title:
This report describes the RIGOS-research program. The objective of this program was to develop guidance on the Multi-Energy Critical Separation Distance. The experimental program resulted in a limited number of concrete indications with respect to the Critical Separation Distance on the basis of which concrete guidance was drawn up. Apart from this primary objective, the RIGOS program led to a substantial amount of additional and interesting information. The data show, for instance, that for separation distances somewhat larger than critical, the donor explosion may largely suppress the acceptor explosion. The gas dynamics of the donors negative phase could explain this surprising observation. The experimental data also gave the opportunity to validate current simple blast modelling methodologies on the acceptor gas explosion data.
TNO Prins Maurits Laboratory
Report no.:
PML 2002-C50 014.10375 April 2002
PML 2002-C50
Assignment no(s):
014.10375
Date:
March 2002
Title:
RIGOS The Critical Separation Distance

Author:
RIGOS The Critical Separation Distance A.C. van den Berg A.L. Mos Gas explosion Vapour cloud explosion Multi-Energy Method Critical separation distance Industrial safety Flame propagation
Author:
A.C. van den Berg A.L. Mos

Descriptor(s):
Descriptor(s):
Gas explosion Vapour cloud explosion Multi-Energy Method Critical separation distance Industrial safety Flame propagation
73
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C30 1/98 Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.10 07/05
ISBN 0-7176-6146-6
RR 369
25.00
9 78071 7 661 466

RIGOS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIGOS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Health & Safety Executive

RESEARCH REPORT 369

Health & Safety Executive

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 -2.50

Harrison Hjertager MERGE

LOG ((VBR*Lf/D) *Sl

Observed overpressures and correlation line for MERGE experiments.

VBR.L f DPo = 0.84 D

The Critical Separation Distance

The obstacle configurations

Typical MERGE obstacle configuration as used in the RIGOS-project.

The test set-up

B1 3m from centre of donor

B2, B3 and B4 3,6 and 12 m from centre of acceptor

Test set-up in the AE, AM, BE and BM test series.

B1,B2 and B3 3,6 and 12 m from centre of donor

B4, B5 and B6 3,6 and 12 m from centre of acceptor

B7, B8 and B9 3,6 and 12 m from centre of acceptor

Test set-up in the AP, CP, DP and the DM test series.

Variation of Separation Distance (SD)

= 1060 mm, = 1408 mm, = 1760 mm,

Definition of test series AE.

SD/DD DD1 DD2 DD3

0.25 AE05 AE09 -

0.5 AE04 AE07 Cancelled

1 AE01 AE06 Cancelled

1.5 AE02 AE08 Cancelled

Definition of experiments AM06 AM08.

Schematic view of set-up in the test series C.

Combination of large and small obstacles

Results and Analysis

Donor-acceptor explosion behaviour

Some preliminary theoretical considerations

Donor-acceptor flame propagation.

Schematised donor-acceptor flame propagation.

06/10/2000 AE08, SD1.5 p=4.65d, 16+

RIGOS AE08 SD=1.5DD

Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number AE8.

AE08 SD=1.5DD Blast

Blast overpressure-time signals B1- P4 recorded in test number AE8.

RIGOS AE09 SD=0.25DD Pressure

Figure 10a: Pressure-time signals P1- P9 recorded in test number AE9.

AE09 SD=0.25DD Blast

The Critical Separation Distance

separation distance/donor size (-)

0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

donor explosion overpressure (kPa)

Critical separation distance dependent on donor overpressure.

Influence of a Connecting Obstacle Configuration

28/08/2000 AM4, SD=0.5

RIGOS AM04 SD=0.5DD

2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

28/08/2000 AM4, SD=0.5

RIGOS CM01, SD=0.5DD, bridge 8x8x4, pressure

-10.0k 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

Blast CM01; 3, 6 and 12 m from centre ACCEPTOR, bridge 8x8x4

-2k 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

RIGOS AE07 SD=0.5DD Pressure

PEB/PEI 15/05/2001 014.10375 CE01

RIGOS Pressure CE01, bridge 8x8x4

PEB/PEI 09/05/2001 014.10375 CE01

Blast CE01; 3, 6 and 12 m from centre DONOR, bridge 8x8x4

PEB/PEI 09/05/2001 014.10375 CE01

LOG ((VBRLf/D) Sl