Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Download by: [Nanyang Technological University] Date: 09 October 2017, At: 01:44
Ships and Offshore Structures
Vol. 5, No. 1, 2010, 312
Hydrocarbon (gas) explosions and fire are the hazardous events that present the greatest potential risk for offshore installations.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
More refined computations of the consequences of explosions and fire within the framework of quantified risk assessment and
management for offshore installations are therefore required. Although the action characteristics of such hazardous events
must be identified prior to an analysis of their consequences, the objective of the present paper is to develop a modeling
technique for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of hydrocarbon explosions and fire. The results of this study
form part of phase I of the three-phase Joint Industry Project on Explosion and Fire Engineering in floating production,
storage and offloading systems (FPSO) (abbreviated by EFEF JIP).
Keywords: offshore installations; floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO); gas explosion; fire; computational
fluid dynamics (CFD); quantified risk assessment (QRA) and management
Corresponding author: Email: bonjour@pusan.ac.kr
ISSN: 1744-5302 print / 1754-212X online
Copyright
C 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17445300902872028
http://www.informaworld.com
4 J.K. Paik et al.
Figure 2. Layout of the laboratory test facility used for the methane gas explosion (Gieras et al. 2006).
Figure 7 that these simulations are in good agreement with from this figure that the total energy model, which takes
the experimental results in terms of the pressure versus the kinetic energy effect into account, is more relevant to
time history, which can be characterised by four parameters, an analysis of explosion actions.
namely, time, peak pressure, type of decay after the peak Figure 7(b) presents the effects of the chamber wall
pressure has been reached and the duration of the impact heat transfer modeling. It can be seen that the ambient tem-
pressure (Paik and Thayamballi 2007). perature model that is equivalent to the test gives accurate
Figure 7(a) presents the effects of heat transfer modeling results, whereas the adiabatic model fails to transfer the
in terms of the thermal or total energy models. It is evident heat energy to the exterior of the chamber.
Figure 5. ANSYS CFX model for the Gieras explosion test using tetrahedral elements.
Figure 6. Variations in explosion pressure with time, as obtained from the ANSYS CFX simulations: (a) 0.002 s, (b) 0.012 s, (c) 0.02 s
and (d) 0.132 s. Illustrations can be viewed in colour online.
Ships and Offshore Structures 7
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 7(a). Effects of the heat transfer model on the explosion Figure 7(b). Effects of the wall heat transfer model on the ex-
pressure versus time history of the Gieras explosion test model, plosion pressure versus time history of the Gieras explosion test
as obtained from the CFX simulations. model, as obtained from the CFX simulations.
Although the time-variant temperatures were not mea- Figure 9. Figure 10 shows a photo of the jet firing inside
sured during the test, the CFX simulations provided the test compartment.
time-variant temperature-related information, as shown in The temperature measurements at various locations
Figure 8. The peak temperature reached more than 2,200 sometime after the jet firing had begun are shown in
K around 0.1 s after ignition, which is prior to the time Figure 11. It can be seen that the maximum temperature
at which the peak pressure is meant to occur, i.e. at 0.2 s. was 1400 K and the temperature at location CD was higher
Figure 8 also indicates that the adiabatic model of wall heat
transfer behaviour also increases the peak temperature.
4. Concluding remarks
Figure 12(a). ANSYS CFX model of the jet fire test using tetra- The aim of the study reported herein was to develop a
hedral elements. CFD modeling technique for the analysis of hydrocarbon
10 J.K. Paik et al.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 13. Variations in temperature with time at (a) 0.02 s, (b) 1.0 s, (c) 2.0 s and (d) 9.0 s.
Figure 14(a). Comparison of temperatures at AB in the test Figure 14(b). Comparison of temperatures at CD in the test
measurements and CFX simulations. measurements and CFX simulations.
Ships and Offshore Structures 11
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017
Figure 14(c). Comparison of temperatures at the opening in the Figure 16. Effects of the wall heat transfer model on the tem-
test measurements and CFX simulations. perature versus time history at CD at an elevation of 1.7 m, as
obtained from the CFX simulations.
Paik JK, Czujko Z. 2008. Joint industry project on explosion and Paik JK, Thayamballi AK. 2007. Ship-shaped offshore installa-
fire engineering of FPSOs. Proceedings of the workshop on tions: design, building, and operation. Cambridge (England):
Design of FPSO Structures; 2008 Nov. 2021; Geoje, Korea. Cambridge University Press.
Paik JK, Melchers RE. 2008. Condition assessment of aged struc- Vinnem JE. 2007. Offshore risk assessment. London (England):
tures. New York: CRC Press. Springer-Verlag.
Paik JK, Thayamballi AK 2003. Ultimate limit state design of Wen JX, Huang LY. 2000. CFD modeling of confined jet fires
steel-plated structures. Chichester (England): John Wiley & under ventilation-controlled conditions. Fire Saf J. 34:1
Sons. 24.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 01:44 09 October 2017