1 / 22

Evaluation of Safety Distances Related to Unconfined Hydrogen Explosions

Evaluation of Safety Distances Related to Unconfined Hydrogen Explosions. Sergey Dorofeev FM Global 1 st ICHS, Pisa, Italy, September 8-10, 2005. Motivation. Confined versus unconfined.

maggies
Download Presentation

Evaluation of Safety Distances Related to Unconfined Hydrogen Explosions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation of Safety Distances Related to Unconfined Hydrogen Explosions Sergey Dorofeev FM Global 1st ICHS, Pisa, Italy, September 8-10, 2005

  2. Motivation Confined versus unconfined • H2 releases in confined and semi-confined geometries (tunnels, parking, garages, etc.) represent a significant safety problem • Possibility of hydrogen accumulation, • Promoting role of confinement for FA and pressure build-up • Unconfined H2 explosions can also be a significant safety problem • Releases in obstructed areas (refuelling stations, hydrogen production units, etc.) • Relatively fast dilution of H2-air mixtures at open air and inefficient FA without confinement • On the other hand: large quantities of H2

  3. Motivation Consequences • Potential consequences of unconfined hydrogen explosions important for safety distances • Blast effects • Thermal effects • Effects of explosion-generated fragments • Blast effects are usually of the prime interest for safety distances • May be especially important for hydrogen because of their potential severity • Unconfined hydrogen explosions and their blast effects are the focus of the present study

  4. Motivation Analysis strategy • A detailed analysis of blast effects should include • Hydrogen release and distribution • Flame propagation and blast generation in complex 3D geometry • Blast wave propagation and its effect on the surrounding objects • This would generally require an application of 3D CFD simulations • Limited variety of the cases / applications • A simple approximate analytical tool should be useful • Screening tool to select the cases where detailed analysis may be necessary

  5. Objective • Develop a simple approximate method for evaluation of blast effects and safety distances for unconfined hydrogen explosions • Model for evaluation of hydrogen flame speeds in obstructed areas • Model for properties of “worst case” hydrogen distribution • Model for blast parameters • Set of blast damage criteria

  6. Methodology Flame speeds • Pressure effect of a gas explosion essentially depends on the maximum flame speed • It is important to have a reliable estimate for the flame speed • Flame speed increases due to: • Increase of the flame area in an obstacle field • Increase of the turbulent burning velocity during flame propagation

  7. Methodology Flame speeds • Flame folding due to obstacles • Plus Bradley correlation for turbulent burning velocity: x R R y x a b

  8. Methodology Flame speeds • Experimental data

  9. Methodology Flame speeds • Correlation

  10. Methodology Hydrogen distribution • There is clearly a variety of release scenarios, which can affect the resulting hydrogen distribution • Continuous release • Slow: jet or plume with size of flammable volume  break size • Fast: jet with size of flammable volume >> break size • Instantaneous release – most dangerous • Pressure vessel rupture • LH2 release or vessel rupture • Other scenarios

  11. Methodology Model for gas distribution • Instead of considering specific scenarios here, a simple general model for instantaneous releases is analysed • This model assumes that the released hydrogen forms a cloud with a non-uniform concentration • The form of the cloud is assumed to be semi-spherical, for simplicity • Hydrogen concentration reachesmaximum in the centre and decreases linearly with radius • Stoichiometric H2/air – unrealistic and overconservative! r Cmax

  12. Methodology ‘Worst case’ distribution • Variable: maximum concentration in the centre, Cmax • ‘Worst case’: maximum of < >=<(-1)SL>, averaged between UFL and LFL • Properties of ‘worst case’: • Cmax = 88% vol. • < > = 0.1max • <E> = 60% of total chemical energy LFL UFL Cmax

  13. Methodology Blast parameters • Calculations of blast parameters are based on our method published in 1996 • Dimensionless overpressure and impulse are functions of flame speed, Vf

  14. Methodology Damage potential • An assessment of damage potential is made here using pressure-impulse (P, I) damage criteria

  15. Results Characteristic obstacle geometry • High congestion, x = 0.2 m; y = 0.1 m: a technological unit with multiple tubes / pipes. • Medium congestion, x = 1 m; y = 0.5 m: a technological unit surrounded by other units / boxes. • Low congestion, x = 4 m; y = 2 m: a large technological unit surrounded by other large units (e. g., refueling station)

  16. Results Flame speeds • Obstacle geometry affects significantly flame speeds • To reach 300 m/s: 1 kg, 40 kg, and 1000 kg high, medium, and low congestion

  17. Results Radii for selected levels of damages • Example for medium congestion

  18. Results Safety distances – contributing factors • Scenarios • Consequences • Pressure • Thermal • Fragments • Acceptance criteria • Population • Regulations • Costs

  19. Results Safety distances - example • Defined, as an example, by minimum building damage criterion for unconfined H2 explosions

  20. Results Safety distances – fuel comparison • The same method applied to: hydrogen, ethylene, propane, methane – medium congestion

  21. Results Safety distances – fuel comparison • The same as a function of total combustion energy of released gas

  22. Conclusions • A simple approximate analytical method for evaluation of blast effects and safety distances for unconfined H2 explosions has been presented • Potential blast effects of unconfined H2 explosions strongly depends on the level of congestion • Certain threshold values of the mass of hydrogen released may be defined as potentially damaging • This minimum mass varies by several orders of magnitude depending on the level of congestion • In terms of potential blast effects, hydrogen may represent a significantly high threat as compared to ethylene, propane, and methane

More Related