Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 56

Advances in

Structural Design
against
Fires & Explosions
Ramsay Fraser

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

www.fabig.com

Advances in
Structural Design against
Fires & Explosions
Examples of current practice
for assessment of structural response to blast & fire
Review some learning from 1988 to 2013
Knowledge transfer
to the next generation of structural engineers

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

Latest analysis techniques for structural


response to blast load Greenfield project design
Wall response for spatial and temporal consideration of blast load

Design of 110m long blast wall on new Semi-Sub


Central Processing Facility (CPF)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

CPF Topsides
South Blast Wall
- to protect LQ

North Blast Wall


- to protect large
inventory equipment

Pressure pulse (P,A,T) across the 110m long wall


- spatial and temporal consideration of blast load

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

NLFEA analysis - external deck - 110m x 25m wall

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

20 DLB cases - (pressure, area and time)

Maximum displacement
was 320mm (12.5in)

Displacement contours (m)


View from Southwest
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

Latest analysis techniques for structural


response to blast load Brownfield project assessment
Global topside response

Platform layout FEED design

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

10

Structural model for response to blast

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

11

Blast overpressure (internal and external)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

12

LQ response to blast

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

13

LQ response to blast + ties at drill deck

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

14

Latest analysis techniques for structural


response to blast load Brownfield project assessment
Living Quarters shield wall closely spaced walls

Existing wall
retrofit design required to protect the North wall of accommodation module.
minimize damage to the existing structure from a blast load of 0.77bar with 95 ms duration
limited space; minimum of 21 clearance between wall and primary topside truss
hard connections are only permitted along the perimeter of the existing wall

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

16

Existing wall

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

17

Fluid structure Interaction (FSI) by


coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian (CEL)
analyses.
The air gap was modeled by Eulerian elements
that surround and extend past the two walls
In an Eulerian analysis nodes are fixed in space,
and material flows through elements that do
not deform.

Years ago tests were performed on onshore


buildings that showed the response of a shield
wall was transmitted to the building if the
sheild wall was too close.
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

18

Max deflection in shield wall is 3 cf 9 without FSI.


Max deflection of the existing panel was 2 .

Closely spaced walls - deflections

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

19

Closely spaced walls - Air Pressure (PSI)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

20

Existing wall plastic strain

W/O Air local bearing


FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

W Air distributed load


21

Bearing on new wall to existing wall plastic strain

W/O Air
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

W/ Air
22

Blast load and structural response


Review of learning from 1988 to 2013

Explosion hazard management


Legal Requirement

Major Accident
Hazard

Safety Critical
Element

Company Values
Stakeholder Information

Gas Build Up

Explosion Modelling

Structural Capacity

Parts Count
Frequency Data
Ignition Probability
Wind Rose
Average Wind Speed

Module Geometry
Gas Composition
Vent Area
Ignition location
etc

Structural Drawings
Explosion Profile
(pressure,area,duration)
Material Properties

Gas Concentration
Gas Dispersion

Phenomenological
or CFD

SDOF or
Non Linear FEA

eg CSTR models or
CFD (Star ccm or Fluent)

eg SCOPE or
CFD (FLACS)

SDOF (BIGGS) or
FEA (ABAQUS)

EXCEEDENCE CURVE -> SLB, DLB -> max credible wall capacity (1 to 3 bar)
RISK ASSESSMENT ( CONSEQUENCE OR QRA MODEL)
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

24

Single degree of freedom analysis


7

450

= 6.0

400

6
350

Dynamic Response
Elastic/Static Response
Blast Overpressure

250

200

p_residual = 142.2mbar

150

2
100
1
50

92
99
10
5
11
2
11
8
12
5
13
1
13
8
14
4
15
1
15
8
16
4
17
1
17
7
18
4
19
0
19
7
20
4
21
0
21
7
22
3
23
0
23
6
24
3
25
0

79
85

66
72

53
59

39
46

26
33

0
7
13
20

0
0

Ductility

300

Overpressure (mbar)

Time (ms)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

25

1990s - structural designers lack awareness of


blast ve pressure

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

26

1990s - structural analysts lack awareness of


overpressure on adjacent roof & floor

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

27

Industry mitigation errors in the 1990s


SCEs (eg fire pump) adjacent to blast wall. SCE then gets
impaired when the wall deforms!
SCEs (eg Riser ESD ) supported off the floor of the wellbay.
A wellbay blast can then shear off the riser and the ESDV!
Blast Wall strengthening (and stiffening) was performed by
carbon fibre bonded to column flanges. This made the wall
respond elastically, which increased the end reactions, which
made the welded connection the weak link and REDUCED
the failure capacity of the wall!
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

28

Lessons Learned...
Run a simple check first before advanced analysis
Run sensitivities first before advanced analysis
Look for cliff edge effects
Apply Proportionality and Transparency in design/ assessment

In probabilistic analysis - ignition location can change the blast


wall loads significantly and gas build up can change the gas
volume significantly...
So beware of jumps in the exceedance curve and remember
engineering judgement and feasible blast wall capacities

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

29

Heat transfer
Methodology

Structural response to fire load


Define fire scenarios
fire type, location, geometry and intensity.
CFD (eg KAMELEON) or code values of heat flux
;heat flux radiated from fire and
temperature of air surrounding steel (for conduction)
Create FE model geometry
Convert from CATIA V5 or PDMS via .dgn format
FAHTS (Fire And Heat Transfer Simulations) or ABAQUS
Calculate steel temperature for duration of fire
USFOS (Ultimate Strength For Offshore Structures) or ABAQUS
Calculate response of structure as a function of steel temperature

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

31

Latest analysis techniques for structural


response to fire load Greenfield project design
Topside fire analysis & PFP optimization

PFP scheme

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

33

Plastic utilisation no PFP

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

34

Plastic utilisation with PFP

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

Topsides PFP area = 4113 m^2


Jacket and bracing PFP area = 538 m^2
57.7% Reduction in PFP area

35

Latest analysis techniques for structural


response to fire load Brownfield project assessment
Hull (Deck) fire analysis

Fire analysis of Production jack-up deck

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

37

Process deck above hull

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

38

fire load applied for 2 hours

Fire load
Cavity 1

Cavity 2

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

Cavity 3

39

Thermal analysis temperature contours

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

40

Process deck temperature time history


1
2

3
4

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

41

Main hull deck temperature time history


1
2

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

42

Bottom hull deck temperature time history


1
2

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

43

Plastic strain in Process & Main decks

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

44

Fire analysis of entire deck

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

45

Temperature time

Assumed Curve

Assumed Curve

900

800

800

700

700

Temperature (Node 1)

500

Temperature (Node 2)
400

Temperature (Node 3)
Temperature (Node 4)

300

Temperature (Node 5)

Nodal Temperature (C)

Nodal Temperature ( C)

600
600

500
Temperature (Node 1)
400

Temperature (Node 3)
300

200

100

100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Time (seconds)

Main Hull Deck


FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

7000

8000

Temperature (Node 4)

Temperature (Node 5)

200

Temperature (Node 2)

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Time (seconds)

Tank Top and Hull Bottom


46

Temperature at 40mins (no deck PFP)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

47

Plastic strain & collapse at 40mins (no deck PFP)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

48

Temperature at 1hr (underside of main deck PFP)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

49

Plastic strain & collapse at 1hr


(underside of main deck PFP)

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

50

Summary & Conclusions

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

51

Summary & Conclusions


30 years is long enough for
a communication gap to develop from
one engineering generation to the next.

as time passed during the


period of development, the bases of the
design methods were forgotten and so were
their limits of validity. Following a period of
successful construction, a designer, perhaps
a little complacent, simply extended the
design method once too often
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

52

Today we have better structural analysis tools, however...


Todays structural analysts are less familiar with the fundamentals
of structural response to blast and fire load.
Todays structural designers dont have access to the lessons learned.

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

53

technical development of staff at speed


co-founded distance learning MSc at Aberdeen University
MSc in Offshore Structures
Year 1 - Certificate Stage
Conceptual Design of Topside Modules
Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics
Structural Dynamics
Design of Connections
Year 2 - Diploma Stage
Blast and Fire Engineering
Brownfield Engineering
Petrochemical Structural Engineering
Finite Element Methods
Year 3 - MSc Stage
Conceptual Design of Jackets and Subsea
Structures
Design of Jacket Attachments
Design of Stiffened Plates
Re-Assessment of Existing Structures by
Structural Reliability Analysis
FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

54

Lessons learned & knowledge management

FABIG Session - Piper 25 Conference

55

Advances in
Structural Design
against
Fires & Explosions
ramsay.fraser@atkinsglobal.com
ali.sari@atkinsglobal.com

Tuesday, 18 June 2013

www.fabig.com