Turbulent jet modelling for hazardous area classication

Renato Benintendi
*
Megaris Ltd, 57 Send Barns Lane, Woking, Surrey GU23 7BS, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 March 2009
Received in revised form
20 November 2009
Accepted 20 November 2009
Keywords:
ATEX
Hazardous areas classication
Turbulent jet
Gasdynamics
Explosion
EN 60079-10
a b s t r a c t
Hazardous area classication, as per EN 60079-10, is based on the explosive gas volume of the clouds in
which the average gas concentration is related to the Low Explosion Limit (LEL). The higher Reynolds
number, the less this approach is valid, because of the development of a concentration gradient due to
the momentum driven ow. The resulting areas and volumes may be overestimated by two or three
orders of magnitude, which is often critical in equipment design and selection. This paper proposes and
technically justies an overview of turbulent jet ow modelling, with the aim at developing a more
realistic calculation method of the hazardous areas, within the ATEX approach.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Hazardous Area Classication is a primary concern of process
safety and design. Within ATEX approach, the sizing of gaseous
explosive clouds is generally carried out in accordance with EN
60079-10 (2002). This is based on the hypothetical volume V
z
,
which is the volume over which the mean concentration of am-
mable gas or vapour is either 0.25 or 0.5 times the Low Explosion
Limit (LEL). The result generally overestimates the real size of
volumes, that is often an unacceptable outcome. This has been
underlined and proven also by Gant and Ivings (2005), through
a CFD modelling of gas jets. The present work aims at developing,
relatively to turbulent jets, a simple and rigorous hazardous area
calculation method, which gives more realistic results, than the so
called V
z
volume approach.
2. V
z
volume approach: estimation of explosive clouds
Section B.4.2 of EN 60079-10 presents the following formula for
estimating the hypothetical volume V
z
of explosive gas atmosphere
due to an emission:
V
Z
f $
__
dV
dt
_
min
_
C
_
(1)
and:
_
dV
dt
_
min

_
dG
dt
_
max
$
_
T
k$LEL$293
_
(2)
where (dV/dt)
min
is the minimum volumetric ow rate of fresh air
(m
3
/s), (dG/dt)
max
the maximumrelease rate at source (kg/s), LEL is
the lower explosive limit (kg/m
3
), k is a safety factor, T is the
ambient temperature (K), C the number of fresh air changes per
unit time (s
1
).
The estimated volume has an average concentration related to
the LEL. A similar procedure is recommended by the Italian code CEI
31-35 (2007) also for calculating the so called hazardous distance
d
z
, that is the distance from the emission source at which the gas
concentration is lower than the LEL. This method refers again to the
LEL. No importance is given to the gas concentration and velocity
distribution in the cloud, which is, at the contrary, well charac-
terised and strongly marked, particularly for the high Reynolds
number ow jets, such as pressure relief valve discharges or
releases from high pressure pipelines. The related inuence on the
resulting cloud size is so expectedly high.
3. Turbulent jets
Jets may be generally regarded as turbulent or laminar also
dependently on their mixing efciency as well as on the ambient air
entrainment. This is very high when the Reynolds number, referred
to the exit zone, equals or is higher than 10
4
, which may be
assumed as a lower border line in applying the theory of the fully
developed jet, according to many research and practice suggestions
(f.i. Yujiro Suzuki and Takehiro Koyaguchi, 2007, API RP 521, 2008).
* Tel.: 44 (0) 1483225062; fax: 44 (0) 1483559265.
E-mail address: benintendi@libero.it
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j l p
0950-4230/$ e see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.11.004
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) 373e378
Moreover, no further change in the jet behaviour is expected
increasing Reynolds number beyond this value.
3.1. Gas conditions at the exit plane
To calculate the uid properties downstream, further to a high
pressure jet release, gas characteristics at the exit plane must be
known. Isentropic expansion hypothesis may be assumed and,
accordingly, the gas characteristics obtained. Indicating with
subscript v the calm gas state and with subscript e the exit sonic
ow condition, it will be:
P
e
P
v

_
2
g 1
_ g
g1
(3)
T
e
T
v

_
2
g 1
_
(4)
r
e
r
v

_
2
g 1
_ g
g1
(5)
v
e

_
2$g
g 1
$R$T
v
_
1=2
(6)
The mass ow through the exit is given by the expression:
m
e
r
e
$v
e
$
p$D
2
e
4
(7)
3.2. Mach disc
A high velocity (momentum driven) gas jet from a stagnant
volume is choked at the exit. Immediately downstream, it expands
and velocity increases so that supersonic conditions occur. Jets with
a high jet pressure ratio are classied as underexpanded. The
originated expansion waves meet the jet boundary and are reec-
ted as compression waves. The overall result is the well known
barrel-shaped shock, which covers a jet zone substantially unaf-
fected by any entrainment contribution from the surrounding calm
gas, as remarked by Xu, Zhang, Wen, Dembele, and Karwatzki
(2005). Jet gas recompression creates a normal shock, the Mach
disc, downstream of which the ow becomes sonic.
The knowledge of the Mach disc distance from the exit plane is
essential to identify the position of the rst jet section where
entrainment begins, that is the door of a transition zone of the jet. If
a combustible gas is emitted to calmair, then this is the rst section
where a gas-fuel mixing takes place. The mentioned distance may
be estimated according to the following empirical formula of Ash-
kenas and Sherman (1966):
z
M
0:67$D$
_
P
v
P
a
_
1=2
(8)
where P
a
is the atmospheric pressure and x is the distance along
the jet axis.
The Mach disk section is also the place where the ow condi-
tions become sonic again. Accordingly, indicating this section with
the subscript M, the equation of continuity including the same
(sound) velocity:
p$
D
2
e
4
$r
e
$v
e
p$
D
2
M
4
$r
M
$v
M
(9)
and the ideal gas law application, will give:
p$
D
2
e
4
$P
e
p$
D
2
M
4
$P
M
(10)
where P
M
is not strictly the calm ambient pressure, but, according
to Xu et al. (2005), it is generally a little bit higher. Downstream,
a further transition zone exists, which drives the jet to the so called
similarity zone.
3.3. Transition zone
The existence of a transition zone has been broadly recognised
and studied. It has typically the following characteristics:
e the turbulent intensity is not completely developed, to a vari-
able extent, also depending onthe Reynolds number; numerical
vortices, presumably due to the curved slip stream boundary,
have been found to exist by Prudhomme and Haj-Hariri (1994);
e the velocity prole follows a decay law approximately
proportional to x
0.5
according to Yue (1999);
e entrainment takes place, as stated by Boguslawski and Popiel
(1979) and Hill (1972), with a lower coefcient with respect to
the fully developed jet;
e the transition zone terminates at a distance that depends on
the Reynolds number. For momentumdriven high velocity jets,
this distance from the exit plane may be assumed to be at
x 25O30 according to Bogey and Bailly (2006). It is inter-
esting to note that this is also the distance at which a full
vorticity is supposed to begin.
3.4. Prole similarity zone
Beyond the transition zone, the jet forms a conical shape volume
with a virtual origin placed at a distance a fromthe opening (Fig. 1),
which, for simplicity's sake, has been assumed equal to zero in the
next calculations. Reichardt (1942) supposed an axial similar
velocity prole following a Gauss error function, which has been
conrmed by Shepelev (1961) and other authors.
Accordingly, the velocity prole in any section may be repre-
sented by the following general equation:
vr; x
v0; x
exp
_
A$
_
r
x
_
2
_
(11)
in which v(r,x) is the velocity at the distance r from the axis and
v(0,x) is the centreline maximum velocity, both at the point x.
Shepelev (1961) proposed:
vr; x
v0; x
exp
_

1
2
$
_
r
0:082$x
_
2
_
(12)
x
D
e
) x ( r
) x , 0 ( v
) x , r ( v
) x ( R

a=D
e
g t c 2 /
n o i t i s n a r T w o l f d e p o l e v e d y l l u F e r o C
Fig. 1. Jet ow.
R. Benintendi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) 373e378 374
Along the axis, within the third zone, the momentum conser-
vation equation may be applied. So, being:
M
e
r
e
$p$
D
2
e
4
$v
2
e
(13)
and
M
x
2$p$
_
Rx
0
r$vr; x
2
$r$dr (14)
the jet momentum at the exit plane and at the distance x of the
axis respectively, it will result:
M
e
M
x
(15)
where R(x) is the maximum radial width at the axis point x.
Concerning the centreline velocity v(0,x), the following hyper-
bolic decay law may be assumed in the similarity zone, as:
v0; x
v
e
B$
D
e
x a
(16)
The momentum conservation assumption has been stressed
by several researchers. It is generally agreed that the fully devel-
oped zone terminates to a fourth zone, where the jet momentum
loss is expected due to dissipation. Nottage (1951) drew the
behaviour of the M
x
/M
e
ratio vs x/D
e
ratio, at constant values of
Reynolds number. Specically, the higher this is, the more the
mentioned ratio keeps equal to 1. In correspondence to different
Reynolds number values, M
x
/M
e
decreases linearly with the x/D
e
ratio approximately with the same slope.
3.4.1. The entrainment
As mentioned, ambient uid entrainment begins downstream
the Mach disk and fully develops in the similarity zone. The general
entrainment equation is the following:
dmx
dx
C
e
$
m
e
D
e
(17)
where m
e
and m(x) are the initial and the overall entrained gas
mass ow rates at x respectively.
By integration, it will give:
mx
m
e
C
e
$
x
D
e
(18)
Equation (18) might be considered valid from the Mach disk
distance up to approximately x z 120D
e
, even if the entrainment
coefcient in the transition zone should be assumed equal to 1/3
the coefcient valid for the similarity zone, as reported by Hill
(1972). Here, it is broadly accepted that, until the fourth zone is
reached, Ricou and Spalding (1961) entrainment coefcient
applies:
mx
m
e
0:32$
x
D
e
(19)
Similarly, the API RP 521 (2008) standard recommends:
mx
m
e
0:264$
x
D
e
(20)
In the present work, coefcients reported in eqs. (19) and (20)
have been assumed as the upper and lower limit respectively of the
practicable range.
3.5. Approximation of Thring and Newby
The jet entrains air downstream the Mach disk, so that the gas
density at the boundary approaches the air density r
a
not far
from the nozzle exit. Thring and Newby (1953) introduced the
concept of equivalent nozzle, which has the same momentum
and velocity as the operating nozzle, M
e
and v
e
, but the density of
the entrained uid, i.e air in the present paper. More recently,
further alternative equivalent diameter (nozzle) theories have
been developed, (f.i. Birch et al. (1987) and Schefer et al. (2007)).
Application of the equivalence criterion will give:
D
eq
D
e
$

r
e
r
a
_
(21)
being the subscript a referred to ambient air.
The equivalence allows to consider constant the density in the
model development, provided that the equivalent nozzle is
adopted.
4. The ammable gas cone
The characterisation of the fully developed jet zone and its
stability along the axis allow to identify the hypothetical volume V
z
of explosive gas atmosphere, differently from the EN 60079-10
method. With reference to Fig. 2, this volume will be completely
known, once the following will have been dened:
ethe cross sections corresponding to the UEL and LEL,
respectively
ethe cross section diameter variation law along the axis
4.1. Concentration gradient along the axis
Independently of the transversal concentration prole, an
(assumed) cross sectional isoconcentration may be easily deter-
mined along the axis, so that any given molar fraction of ammable
gas, progressively mixed with the ambient air, may be exactly
x
, L E L
X
L E L
x
, L E U
X
L E U
D
L E L
D
L E U
Fig. 2. Explosive volume.
R. Benintendi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) 373e378 375
localised. Indicating with X
f
the mean molar fraction of the am-
mable gas and with MW
f
and MW
a
the molecular weight of the gas
and of the air respectively, it will be:
X
f

m
e
=MW
f
mx m
e
=MW
a
m
e
=MW
f
(22)
and, through the (18):
X
f

1=MW
f
_
C
e
$
x
De
1
__
MW
a
1=MW
f
(23)
Being the explosive cloud a truncated conical volume limited
downward by the LEL section and upward by the UEL section, these
will be identied writing:
X
UEL

1=MW
f
_
C
e
$
xUEL
De
1
__
MW
a
1=MW
f
(24)
X
LEL

1=MW
f
_
C
e
$
xLEL
De
1
__
MW
a
1=MW
f
(25)
where X
UEL
and X
LEL
are the molar fractions corresponding to
the UEL and LEL respectively, and x
UEL
and x
LEL
the related
coordinates.
Equations (24) and (25) may be solved for x, obtaining:
x
UEL

_
_
1
X
UEL
$MW
f

1
1=MW
f
_
$MW
a
1
_
$D
e
C
e
(26)
x
LEL

_
_
1
X
LEL
$MW
f

1
1=MW
f
_
$MW
a
1
_
$D
e
C
e
(27)
4.2. Diameter of the cone cross sections
To complete the full characterisation of the spatial distribution
of the ammable gas concentration, the size of the mixture circular
area at any distance x must be calculated. To do that, the equation
of the entrainment:
2$p$
_
Rx
0
rr; x$vr; x$r$dr m
e
$C
e
$
x
D
eq
(28)
has been simplied assuming a constant value of the density,
according to Thring and Newby (1953):
2$p$r
a
_
Rx
0
vr; x$r$dr m
e
$C
e
$
x
D
eq
(29)
Again:
p$r
a
_
Rx
0
vr; xdr
2
m
e
$C
e
$
x
D
eq
(30)
Expressing v(r,x) according to Shepelev:
vr; x
v0; x
exp
_

1
2
$
_
r
0:082$x
_
2
_
(31)
p$r
a
$v0;x$
_
Rx
0
exp
_

1
2
$
_
r
0:082$x
_
2
_
dr
2
m
e
$C
e
$
x
D
eq
(32)
Integrating:
R
x

2
p
$0:082$x

ln
_
1
m
e
$C
e
2$p$r
a
$v0; x$D
eq
$x$0:082
2
_

_
(33)
Concerning centreline (maximum) velocity, the constant B in
eq. (16) has been plotted slightly bigger than 6 by Pope (2000),
equals 6.06 according to Panchapakesan and Lumley (1993), and
5.8 according to Hussein et al. (1994). A value 6 has been
selected.
v0; x 6$
D
eq
$v
e
x
(34)
Substituting in eq. (33):
R
x

2
p
$0:082$x

ln
_
1
C
e
8$6$0:082
2
_

_
(35)
and, relatively to the angle of spread:
a tg
1
_

2
p
$0:082

ln
_
1
C
e
8$6$0:082
2
_

_
_

_ (36)
R
x
calculated through eq. (35) will correspond to an angle
of 14.2

, according to Ricou and Spalding entrainment coefcient,

and 8.3

, according to API RP 521 coefcient. Conservatively, an

angle of 15

shall be assumed.
Introducing the value of x
UEL
and x
LEL
obtained fromeq. (26) and
(27) in the eq. (35), the diameters of the UEL and LEL sections will
be calculated. In doing that, it must be considered that, the lower is
the entrainment coefcient, the larger is the truncated cone
volume. It is so recommended to use the Ricou and Spalding
entrainment coefcient for the spread angle and the API RP 521
entrainment coefcient for the volume sizing.
5. Comparative results
In order to test the method, two different comparative estima-
tions have been analysed, relatively to natural gas. Specically, they
refer respectively to:
eAn example proposed by the Italian Code CEI 31-35/A, which
carries out the calculation of the volume V
z
in accordance with
the EN 60079-10
eA CFD simulation carried out by the Gant and Ivings (2005),
which quanties the size of the cloud to which a mean
concentration of 50% LEL corresponds.
The summary of the input data and the results are given in
Tables 1 and 2 respectively. As expected, the volume Vzobtained
through the jet method is largely smaller than the one sized
according to the EN 60079-10. Differently, the agreement with CFD
R. Benintendi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) 373e378 376
simulation seems really good. In the application of the present
method, for simplicity's sake, the Thring and Newby approximation
has not been applied.
6. The method
The analysis carried out in the previous paragraph can be used
for developing a more realistic method for sizing volumes resulting
fromturbulent jets, to be used in hazardous areas classication. The
relevant steps of the method have been represented in the block
diagram (Fig. 3).
The adoption of both Ricou and Spalding and API RP 521
coefcients of entrainment is effective, with the aim at tting the
most conservative pathway. The method is valid for turbulent jets
with Reynolds number higher than 10
4
. In general, the LEL
section is reached before the initial momentum is lost according
to Nottingham, i.e. the so-called fourth zone begins. This is
underlined also by API RP 521, which reports that, with reference
with hydrocarbons, the LEL section is reached within a distance
from the exit approximately equal to twelve times the nozzle
diameter.
7. Concluding remarks
The necessity to develop an alternative method for estimating
the volume Vz provided by EN 60079-10 has been originated by the
evidence that it overpredicts the resulting explosive volumes, with
respect to verication performed with alternative techniques. For
high Reynolds numbers, the overestimation is expected to be larger,
since the high entrainment coefcient makes the gas rapidly
approach the LEL condition. The analysis of the existing data has
allowed to identify a relatively simple and reliable sizing method,
essentially based on the entrainment equation. In using it, a lower
and upper limit of the applicable entrainment coefcient range
have been assumed, in accordance with API RP 521 and Ricou and
Spalding data, respectively.
The method could be adopted for hazardous area classication
within the ATEX frame, both with the aim at improving the reli-
ability of the results and at avoiding the oversizing of the classied
zones, which is often unacceptable.
References
API RP 521. (2008). Guide for pressure-relieving and depressuring systems. American
Petroleum Institute.
Ashkenas, H., & Sherman, F. S. (1966). Rareed gas dynamics. In J. H. De Leeuw (Ed.),
Proc. 4th int. symp. rareed gas dynamics, vol. II (pp. 84e105). New York:
Academic Press, 1966.
Birch, A. D., Hughes, D. J., & Swafeld, F. (1987). Velocity decay of high pressure jets.
1563-521X. Combustion Science and Technology, 52(1), 161e171.
Bogey, C., & Bailly, C. (2006). Computation of the self-similarity region of a turbulent
round jet using large-eddy simulation. Netherlands: Direct and Large-Eddy
Simulation VI. Springer.
Boguslawski, L., & Popiel, Cz. O. (1979). Flow structure of the free round turbulent
jet in the initial region. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 90(3), 531e539, Cambridge
University Press.
CEI 31-35. (2007). Electrical apparatus for explosive atmospheres e Guide for
classication of hazardous areas. Comitato Elettrotecnico Italiano.
Gant, S. E., & Ivings, M. J. (2005). CFD modelling of low pressure jets for area
classication. Health and Safety Laboratory.
Table 2
Summary of Gant and Ivings CFD results.
e Lupton natural gas
Molecular weight
a
kg/kmol 18.7
LEL
a
% vol 4.3
UEL % vol 17
Specic heat ratio
a
e 1.265
Mass ow rate kg/s 0.416
Stagnation pressure
a
barg 5
Exit pressure
b
barg 2.31
Stagnation temperature K 283
Exit temperature
b
K 249.89
Stagnation density kg/m
3
6.93
Safety coefcient for LEL e 0.5
Vent diameter
a
m 0.0105
Exit density
b
kg/m
3
4.34
Viscosity at exit
b
Pa s 9.26 10
6
Reynolds number
b
e 4.16 10
5
V
z
volume as per CFD m
3
0.0275
V
z
volume as per jet method m
3
0.0233
V
z
CFD vs V
z
jet method e 1.18
Diameter number to full LEL 134
a
Values reported in the Gant and Ivings document.
b
Values calculated.
Pre-emission condition
P
v
,
v
Emission condition
P
e
,
e
, v
e
, m
e
Eq. 3, 5, 6, 7
Equivalent Nozzle
Diameter
D
v
,
v
Eq. 21
MW
a
, MW
f
, X
LEL
, X
UEL
Eq. 26, 27
Isoconcentration sections
coordinates
x
LEL
, x
UEL
Isoconcentration sections
radii
R
LEL
, R
UEL
,
Spread angle = 15
V
z
Fig. 3. Jet calculation procedure.
Table 1
Summary of CEI 31-35/A e GE-2.5.3 example results.
e Natural gas
Molecular weight
a
kg/kmol 17.77
LEL
a
% vol 4.43
UEL % vol 17
Specic heat ratio
a
e 1.31
Mass ow rate
a
kg/s 0.416
Stagnation pressure
a
Pa 28.613 10
5
Exit pressure
b
Pa 15.6 10
5
Stagnation temperature K 293
Exit temperature
b
K 254
Stagnation density kg/m
3
21.136
Safety coefcient for LEL
a
e 0.6
Vent diameter
a
m 0.0105
Exit density
b
kg/m
3
11.54
Viscosity at exit
b
Pa s 9.7 10
6
Reynolds number
b
e 5.47 10
6
V
z
Volume as per CEI 31/35A m
3
264
V
z
Volume as per jet method m
3
0.0213
V
z
CEI vs V
z
jet ratio e 12395
Diameter number to full LEL 130.5
a
Values reported in the Code.
b
Values calculated.
R. Benintendi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) 373e378 377
Hill, B. J. (1972). Measurement of local entrainment rate in the initial region of
axisymmetric turbulent air jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 51(4), 773e779,
Cambridge University Press.
Hussein, J. H., Capp, S. P., & George, W. K. (1994). Velocity measurements in a high-
Reynolds-number, momentum-conserving, axisymmetric, turbulent Jet. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, 258, 31e75, Cambridge University Press.
EN 60079-10. (2002). Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres e part 10:
classication of hazardous areas edition: 4.0. International Electrotechnical
Commission.
Nottage, H. B. (1951). Report on ventilation jets in room air distribution. Cleveland,
Ohio: Case Inst. of Technology.
Panchapakesan, N. R., & Lumley, J. L. (1993). Turbulence measurements in
axisymmetric jets of air and helium. I: Air jet. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 246,
197e223, Cambridge University Press.
Pope, S. B. (2000). Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.
Prudhomme, S. M., & Haj-Hariri, H. (1994). Investigation of supersonic under-
expanded jets using adaptive unstructured nite elements. Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design, 17, 21e40.
Reichardt, H. (1942). Gesetzmssigkeiten der freien Turbulenz, V.D.I. For-
schungsheft 414 (2. Auage 1051)
Ricou, F. P., & Spalding, D. B. (1961). Measurements of entrainment by axisym-
metrical turbulent jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 11(1), 21e32, Cambridge
University Press.
Schefer, Houf, Williams, Bourne, & Colton. (2007). Characterization of high-pres-
sure, under-expanded hydrogen-jet ames. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, 32(13), 2081e2093.
Shepelev, I. (1961). Air supply ventilation jets and air fountains. Proceedings of the
Academy of Construction and Architecture of the USSR, 4.
Thring, M.W. & Newby, M.P. (1953). Combustion length of enclosed turbulent
jet ames. in: Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Combustion,
Pittsburgh, PA, 789e796
Xu B.P., Zhang J.P., Wen J.X., Dembele S. & Karwatzki J. (2005) Numerical study of
a highly underexpanded hydrogen jet, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Safety 2005, Sept 8e10, 2005, Pisa, Italy.
Yue, Z. (1999). Air jet velocity decay in ventilation applications. Installationsteknik
Bullettin, n. 48, ISSN 0248-141X.
R. Benintendi / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 23 (2010) 373e378 378
Ventilation theory and dispersion modelling applied
to hazardous area classication
D.M. Webber, M.J. Ivings
*
, R.C. Santon
Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 15 November 2010
Received in revised form
6 April 2011
Accepted 8 April 2011
Keywords:
Area classication
Jets
Flammable gas
Integral model
Ventilation
a b s t r a c t
Critical formulae given in the current Explosive Atmospheres Hazardous Area Classication Standard IEC
60079-10-1 (2008) [BS EN 60079-10-1, 2009] to determine the expected gas cloud volume which is used
to determine area classication do not have any scientic justication. The standard does allow the
alternative use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods, which serve to compound the concern
with these formulae: the predicted volume of the gas cloud from CFD models being several orders of
magnitude smaller than that given by the formulae in question. To resolve such major discrepancies,
replacement of the current formulae with a scientically validated approach is proposed. Integral models
of dispersion and ventilation have been used routinely for many years in the analysis of major hazards in
the chemical industry. This paper presents an adaptation of these models to determine the expected
volume of a gas cloud arising from a release of gas from a pressurised source. A very simple integral jet
model is presented for outdoor dispersion, extended to the case of indoor dispersion, from which the
volume of the gas cloud is derived. The single free parameter, an entrainment coefcient, is xed by
comparison with data on a free jet, and then predictions of the model are compared with CFD calcula-
tions (which themselves have been validated against experimental data) for dispersion within an
enclosed volume. The results of this simple integral model are seen to agree very well with the CFD
predictions. The methodology presented here is therefore proposed as a scientically validated approach
to Hazardous Area Classication.
Crown Copyright 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The control of sources of ignition by the use of specially pro-
tected equipment in areas where ammable gases or vapours may
arise has been a fundamental safety measure for many years.
Following the availability of specially protected electrical (ame-
proof) equipment for use in mines in the early 20th century, it was
soon adapted for use in surface chemical industries. The classi-
cation of hazardous areas into divisions (later called zones) was
introduced in the 1960s. It was recognised that the highest level of
protection is required where the risk of a release is highest, and that
lower levels of protection could be used where the risk of release is
lower without prejudice to overall safety.
Thus hazardous areas are classied into zones based on the
expected frequency of occurrence and the expected duration of an
explosive gas atmosphere. The zones are currently dened in the
relevant International Standard IEC 60079-10-1, 2008 (published in
the UK as BS EN 60079-10-1, 2009) (hereinafter the standard) as:
Zone 0 e a place in which an explosive gas atmosphere is
present continuously or for long periods or frequently. (Exam-
ples e inside a closed vessel, near the liquid surface in an open
vessel.)
Zone 1 e a place in which an explosive atmosphere is likely to
occur in normal operation occasionally. (Examples e Sample
points, relief valves, drainage points.)
Zone 2 - a place inwhich an explosive atmosphere is not likely to
occur in normal operation but, if it does occur, will persist for
a short time only. (Examples e near anges, pipe ttings, valve
stems, pump glands.)
The ATEX 137 Workplace Directive (1999/92/EC) has been
implemented in the UK as DSEAR, the Dangerous Substances and
Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (2002) and by similar regula-
tions in other EU member states. These regulations require
Hazardous Area Classication (HAC) to be carried out where there
may be a risk of explosion due to the presence of ammable
substances in the form of gases, vapours, mist or dust. To ensure
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 1298 218133; fax: 44 1298 218840.
E-mail address: matthew.ivings@hsl.gov.uk (M.J. Ivings).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j l p
0950-4230/$ e see front matter Crown Copyright 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.04.002
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621
safe operation, any equipment (electrical or non-electrical) used in
a classied hazardous area falls within the scope of the regulations
and must be suitable for use in the respective zone. Accurate and
justiable area classication is therefore not just a technical safety
requirement but also, in the EU, a legal requirement. Specically, to
ensure safety and legal compliance, the methodology used for HAC
needs to be both proven and reliable. Without this, the level of
safety realised will be uncertain and the cost of providing the
specially protected equipment for use in the Hazardous Areas
determined, to be unjustied, or potentially worse, insufcient.
This can only be avoided if there is a proper understanding of
the physical processes leading to the hazard, in terms of both
experiment and theory. If a scientic analysis can be done which
leads to a best estimate of the hazard, then it can be examined
carefully to reveal the circumstances under which it might be an
underestimate, and appropriate allowance made in order to
produce a conservative estimate. If there is no scientic basis, then
any safety factors introduced into an estimate (however that is
done) remain in the realm of conjecture and the overall level of
safety realised must be uncertain.
The methods presented here focus on the science and making
a best estimate, but one particularly clear danger will become
apparent: the hazard is very sensitively dependent on the hole size
leading to a release, and an underestimate of that size will poten-
tially lead to severe non-conservatism. We therefore emphasise
throughout that the results presented here, if they are used for area
classication, must be interpreted with care if a conservative esti-
mate is to be guaranteed.
The existing standard classies hazardous areas on the basis of
the size of an expected hazardous volume V
z
of gas. If this volume
is less than 0.1 m
3
, it is suggested that, if ignited, the cloud would
produce such small overpressure and thermal effects that it may be
regarded as insignicant. In this case the area classication is
designated as of Negligible Extent (NE) and no further action is
required. Therefore protected equipment and controls over sources
of ignition are not required. Accepting that there is empirical
evidence for this classication (Ivings et al., 2008), this paper will
focus on methods for estimating V
z
.
The hazardous volume V
z
is dened as a volume within which
the volume average concentration of the cloud is equal to a certain
threshold, depending on the Zone classication. For Zone 2
conventionally the threshold is taken as 50% of the lower explosive
limit (LEL); for Zones 0 and 1 it is taken as 25% of LEL. This paper
will denote this threshold as the critical threshold concentration
(C
crit
) and not explore further which of these values might be
a better choice in what circumstances, but it should be borne in
mind that these are the sort of gures of interest e typically mole
fractions of no more than a few percent.
Other aspects of IEC 60079-10-1 are more confused however.
The parameter V
z
is used in the standard to differentiate between
high, medium, and low ventilation in an enclosed room. This
misses the essential point that V
z
may depend also on the source of
gas, and in many cases it may be more sensitively dependent on the
source than on the ventilation of the room. This misunderstanding
is taken to its logical conclusion in the case of outdoor jet releases,
which in reality can dilute essentially independently of the state of
the atmosphere, but where V
z
in the standard is determined by the
ventilation of a ctitious cube with sides of 15 m by an imagined
air ow of 0.5 m/s. The introduction of these spurious dimensions,
and neglect of genuine factors determining dispersion, produce
a completely arbitrary result for V
z
.
As an alternative to the formulae it presents, the standard
expressly allows the use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to
calculate an estimate of V
z
. But it is now clear (Benintendi, 2010;
Gant & Ivings, 2005; Ivings et al., 2008) from the use of CFD and
other methods that values of V
z
can result which are up to 3 orders
of magnitude smaller than those arising fromusing the formulae in
the standard.
It is clearly inappropriate that a standard should give the option
of using two methodologies where the results between these show
such wide and inconsistent discrepancy. New methodologies are
therefore required for those who do not have access to, or choose
not to use CFD for the estimation of V
z
indoors and outdoors based
on sound scientic theory to address this concern.
In fact the methodology required is not entirely new. Integral
models of dispersion and ventilation have already been developed
from the 1970s onwards for the analysis of major industrial
hazards following the explosion involving cyclo-hexane at Flix-
borough in 1974; the 1976 Seveso dioxin incident in Italy (leading to
the EUs so-called Seveso directive); and the toxic cloud from the
Union Carbide plant in Bhopal (1984). These incidents and others
have spawned an immense amount of experimental and theoretical
research into the behaviour of gas clouds, which can be adapted
quite straightforwardly to provide simple formulae for the esti-
mation of V
z
. This is the purpose of the current work.
As noted above, the simple V
z
concept is a useful and practical
one. It must be noted, though, that the standard stresses that V
z
is
only to be used as an assessment of the degree of ventilation and
not as having any relation to the location of the hazardous zone. For
example the standard makes no reference to how the potentially
explosive mixture is distributed (although it has in fact sometimes
been used with spurious geometric considerations). In the process
of adapting uid models to the estimation of V
z
some indications of
the distribution of the cloud will emerge, in some cases at least, but
we emphasise that these should be interpreted with care. And V
z
will be shown to be dependent not only on the degree of ventila-
tion but also, and often more signicantly, on the source of gas.
The prime objective here is to provide a scientically-based
estimation of V
z
, specically in the case of a hazard from pressur-
ised vessels or pipe-work, which can be used in the manner dened
by the standard, but with a much greater degree of condence.
2. The current standard e a summary
For indoor situations, in a room of volume V
0
, the current
standard denes a volume V
k
by
V
k

q
min
q
1
V
0
(1)
where q
1
is the ventilation volume ux (volume of air per unit time
owing into and out of the room) and q
min
is the value of q
1
which
results in a room-average concentration equal to the critical
threshold concentration of interest (C
crit
). V
z
is found by multiplying
this volume by a factor f, ranging from 1 to 5 according to whether
ventilationis consideredideal or impeded tosome degree. As noted
in the introduction, no justication at all is provided for this formula.
Out of doors the room is considered to be a cube of 15 m side,
ventilated by a breeze of 0.5 m/s entering and leaving by opposite
faces of the cube e thus prescribing q
1
112.5 m
3
/s. Curiously (in
view of the immense amount of knowledge gained about the
subject in the last 40 years) the standard makes essentially no
mention of the concept of dispersion.
3. Ventilation theory
Consider a room of volume V
0
containing a source of hazardous
gas released at a rate (volume per unit time) q
s
. Let the rate of air
inow from ventilation be q
0
and the total outow be q
1
, as shown
in Fig. 1.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 613
Assuming that the concentration of gas at the outow aperture
is C
1,
a balance of uxes yields:
Volume : q
1
q
0
q
s
(2)
Contaminant : V
0
dC
b
dt
C
s
q
s
C
1
q
1
(3)
where C
s
is the concentration at the source and C
b
is the back-
ground concentration.
The solution of these equations requires an assumption about
howwell-mixed the air is within the roomaway fromthe jet. If this
is optimally efcient, then the background concentration will be
essentially uniform, and we will have C
1
C
b
. More generally let us
assume
C
1
3C
b
(4)
with a constant 3, which we shall denote the efciency of back-
ground mixing as 3 1 denes a well-mixed room volume. If the
ventilation ux enters and leaves in a part of the roomdistant from
the gas source, thenwe may expect 3 <1: the roomis ventilated but
the background mixing is such that the air is not having the optimal
effect in diluting the jet.
1
These equations are solved straightforwardly to give
C
b
t C
e
_
1 e
3nt
_
(5)
where the equilibrium room-average concentration C
e
(achieved
asymptotically at large time) is
C
e
hC
b
t/N
C
s
q
s
3q
1
C
s
q
s
3q
s
q
0

(6)
and
n
q
1
V
0
(7)
is the air change rate (frequency) from ventilation. Note that the
asymptotic room-average concentration depends on the source and
ventilation uxes; the air change rate determines how rapidly it is
achieved.
If we require the room-average concentration to remain lower
than the critical threshold concentration C
crit
, then we must
demand a minimum degree of ventilation:
q
1
>
_
C
s
C
crit
_
_
q
s
3
_
hq
*
min

_
C
s
C
crit
_
q
s
hq
min
(8)
where the last inequality applies when 3 1. The nal value q
min
is
the minimum required ventilation ux (in the absence of any
knowledge of how well distributed the ventilation ow is within
the room), and is exactly the minimum ventilation rate mentioned
in the standard IEC 60079-10-1 (2008). It must be emphasised that
it is based entirely on the existence of solid walls, and on
constraints on room-average concentration. It has nothing to do
with the distribution of gas in the room, nor with any V
z
which
might be signicantly smaller than the room volume, and abso-
lutely nothing to do with outdoor dispersion.
Ventilation considerations alone tell us very little about the
hazardous volume itself, but one further consideration links
ventilation theory with the standard, which denes a volume
V
k
h
q
min
n
(9)
based on the minimum required ventilation ux and the air
exchange frequency. The standard then asserts that the resultant
hazardous volume V
z
is equal to f$V
k
without any form of deriva-
tion. The factor f is dened to have a value between 1 and 5, and is
described as the efciency of ventilation (presumably meaning
inefciency as the hazard increases with f) due to impeded air
ow.
The physical signicance of these volumes can be claried using
the following thought experiment employing Maxwells Demon
2
to
take all of the contaminant gas in the room and mix it with just
enough air to give a uniform concentration C
crit
. This leaves the
room divided into two zones: one containing contaminant mixed
with air to a uniform concentration C
crit
, and the other containing
pure air e see Fig. 2.
This must be done so that the room-average concentration
remains as C
e
as predicted by ventilation theory (including the
circulation efciency factor 3). It is readily found that the volume of
the mixture in these circumstances is:
C
e
C
crit
V
0

C
s
C
crit
q
s
3q
1
V
0

C
s
q
s
C
crit
V
0
3q
1

q
min
3n

V
k
3
(10)
If we associate the standards ventilation inefciency f with
the inverse of our efciency of background mixing 3, then this is
just the hazardous volume asserted by the standard! Interestingly,
under the assumptions of this derivation, the volume V
k
/3 provides
an absolute upper bound on V
z
: there is no rearrangement of
molecules in the room which can make V
z
bigger than this. On the
other hand, we had to employ Maxwells Demon to create this
cloud; in reality we expect any dispersion mechanism to produce
a hazardous volume very much less than this value.
Fig. 1. Volumetric uxes in a ventilated room.
1
The term efciency must be taken somewhat loosely as a jet close to, and
directed at, the outlet, may result in a value 3 > 1. This situation is not of primary
interest, however, as it would be a fortuitous circumstance producing an optimistic
estimate of any hazard.
2
Conceived as a thought experiment by James Clerk Maxwell and subsequently
named by Lord Kelvin, the demon is a magical being who can open or close a door
in a wall when a molecule approaches from one side or the other depending simply
on whether or not he wishes to let it through. The demon can therefore arrange
that molecules with a given property congregate in one part of the room and other
molecules congregate elsewhere, separating, for example, faster molecules from
slower (hot gas from cold), or in this case contaminant from air. The question of
how the demon thus apparently manages to reduce the entropy of the gas while
doing no work, has been recurring theme of interest ever since; we shall not review
the subject here but simply take it for granted that this being is mythical.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 614
In fact if we consider how V
k
was derived above, then one thing
becomes clear immediately: there has been absolutely no consid-
eration of how the gas actually disperses within the room. The
above discussion of the factor f in the standard highlights the fact
that the standard combines both the rate at which air enters the
room (ventilation), the way that air may be distributed around the
room (background mixing), and the way the gas mixes with air
within the room (dispersion) under the single description venti-
lation
3
, and this underlies much of its confusion. In reality it is
dispersion, and not just ventilation, which determines the extent of
a hazardous cloud, and so it is to dispersion theory that we now
turn.
4. Dispersion of jets and plumes
In most cases of interest the hazard is a gas in a pressurised
vessel or pipe-work, and so this will be the primary consideration
of this paper. A small breach will result in a jet. Gas jets have been
studied since the 1960s and in great detail since the 1980s. Their
behaviour is well understood. Many computerised safety analysis
program suites contain gas jet modules, but the standard requires
a simple analytic formula for V
z
. To this effect we present the lowest
common denominator of such models, which we denote QUADJET.
4
For comparison purposes a simple model of a passive plume
(denoted QUADPLUME) is presented in the same framework.
The notation will be as follows:
z [L] downstream distance coordinate
A(z) [L
2
] the cross-sectional area (as a function of down-
stream distance)
r(z) [L] the jet/plume radius (as a function of downstream
distance)
u(z) [Lt
1
] the downstream ow velocity (as a function of
downstream distance)
C(z) [ML
3
] the concentration of ammable gas (as a function of
downstream distance)
r(z) [ML
3
] the plume/jet density (as a function of downstream
distance)
where the square brackets indicate dimensions. It is also of
interest to consider a jet within a large indoor volume in which
there is a background concentration of hazardous gas. Therefore
dene also
C
b
[ML
3
] the background concentration of ammable gas
r
b
[ML
3
] the background density
The case of outdoor dispersion inpure ambient air is recoverable
in the limit (C
b
, r
b
) /(0, r
a
). For indoor jets a non-zero value of C
b
will be taken fromthe ventilation theory presented above, dening
our model, QUADVENT, of jet dispersion in a ventilated room.
4.1. Subsonic jets and plumes
Consider initially subsonic jets and passive plumes. The simple
1-dimensional steady-state ow equations are derived by consid-
ering conservation of momentum, mass, and contaminant gas.
Momentum :
Jet Plume
d
_
ru
2
A
_
dz
0 u u
a
(11)
Mass :
Jet Plume
druA
dz
2prr
b
u
E
druA
dz
2prr
b
u
E
(12)
Contaminant :
Jet Plume
dCuA
dz
2pru
E
C
b
dCuA
dz
2pru
E
C
b
(13)
Where the cross-section A and radius r are related by
A pr
2
(14)
Looking rst at the mass equation e which is of the same form
for jet and plume: this describes a mass ux in direction z which
increases downstream owing to entrainment of ambient air of
density r
b
with some entrainment velocity u
E
(z), through the
perimeter of the plume. (Again it is worth remembering that no
absolute boundary need exist: these concepts are valid in the
context of self-similar proles.)
The contaminant equation describes the contaminant concen-
tration (mass per unit volume) in the same way.
The momentum equation is a genuine conservation of
momentum ux for the jet case (the jet is considered to be in calm
air), but in the plume case simply a statement of advection with
a wind travelling at constant speed u
a
.
Treating the hazardous gas and air as ideal gases at constant
temperature and pressure with molecular weights M
g
and M
a
, the
density and concentration of the mixture satisfy
r r
a
lC (15)
where l 1(M
a
/M
g
).
Finally the models are completed by a sub-model for entrain-
ment. Under the assumption of fully turbulent ow (high Reynolds
number) the entrainment velocity is restricted by dimensional
considerations. In the case of a jet, the turbulence velocity in the jet
which powers entrainment is simply proportional to the jet
velocity u. In the case of a plume in the open, the turbulence level is
proportional to the ambient air speed. Therefore the entrainment
velocity should be proportional to u in both cases. The simplest sub-
model dened by u
E
au was originally proposed by Morton,
Taylor, and Turner (1956) for buoyant plumes and is usually
referred to under their names. But a priori a dependence on the
Fig. 2. A cloud of uniform concentration C
crit
and volume V
k
.
3
This leads further to the bizarre situation in which outdoor dispersion is
considered by the standard to be a form of ventilation.
4
The name QUADJET is intended as a reminder of the fact that the model is to be
considered as the absolutely simplest one possible: a QUick And Dirty JET model.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 615
dimensionless ratio r/r
b
cannot be ruled out, and another popular
model is the model of Ricou and Spalding (1961)
u
E
a

r
r
b
_
u (16)
which we shall adopt here. At the level addressed here, the choice
of model is not expected to make an enormous difference, and this
one leads to signicantly simpler analytic formulae. Note however
that the entrainment coefcient a must be determined empirically,
and that there is no reason to expect it to be the same for plumes
and jets as the turbulence structure in the two cases may be very
different. (In fact for plumes in the open, it may depend on atmo-
spheric stability.)
Equations (11)e(16) dene the jet and plume models, in a way
which makes the physical assumptions clear. The solutions are
straightforward. Denoting conditions at the source with subscript
s, they are
For the jet:
Jet Velocity : u
u
s
1 bz=r
s

(17)
Jet Concentration : C C
b

C
s
C
b

1 mz=r
s

(18)
Jet Radius : r r
s

1 bz=r
s
1 mz=r
s

_
(19)
with constants
bh2a

r
b
r
s
_
mh2a

r
s
r
b
_
(20)
For the passive plume:
Plume Velocity : u u
a
(21)
PlumeConcentration: CC
b

C
s
C
b

_
1
r
s
r
b
_
1bz=r
s

2
1
_
_ (22)
Plumer Radius : r r
s

_
1
r
s
r
b
_
1 bz=r
s

2
1
_
_

(23)
with
bha

r
b
r
s
_
h
b
2
(24)
Consider the point z
H
downstreamwhere the concentration has
decreased to a value C
H
. The volume of the cloud upstream of that
point is
V
H

_
zH
0
dz$Az (25)
and the volume averaged concentration hCi
H
within this volume is
given by
hCi
H

1
V
H
_
zH
0
dz$CzAz (26)
The results of these two integrals give V
H
and hCi
H
as functions
of z
H
, and eliminating z
H
will therefore give V
H
as a function of hCi
H
.
Setting hCi
H
C
crit
will yield V
Z
as dened in the standard.
Following this procedure yields a relationship which is very
simple in the limit where the critical threshold concentration is
small compared with the source concentration (C
H
/C
s
<<1):
Jet Plume
V
Z
z
9pr
3
s
16a
_
r
b
r
s
_
3=2
_
C
s
C
b
C
crit
C
b
_
3
V
Z
z
pr
3
s

3
p
a
_
C
s
C
b
C
crit
C
b
_
3=2
(27)
For a jet out of doors there is zero background concentration and
the background density is that of pure air. In this case therefore:
Jet Plume
V
Z
z
9pr
3
s
16a
_
r
a
r
s
_
3=2
_
C
s
C
crit
_
3
V
Z
z
pr
3
s

3
p
a
_
C
s
C
crit
_
3=2
(28)
4.2. Properties of jets and plumes
Two properties of these equations merit immediate comment.
Firstly, the hazardous volume is proportional to the cube of the
source radius, multiplied by a dimensionless function of the ratio of
source and critical threshold concentrations. This follows simply
from dimensional analysis. This dependence on source size is
sensitive (for example underestimating a breach radius by a factor
of 2 will underestimate the hazardous volume by a factor of 8), and
therefore the choice of credible breach size will be crucial to esti-
mating a hazardous volume. A particular point of concern is that at
high overpressures (typically higher than around 10 barg) an
initially small puncture may propagate into a larger breach. In this
case, rather than trying to estimate a realistic hole size, it may be
better, given this sensitivity, simply to estimate V
z
as being large
enough to pose a signicant hazard.
Secondly, there is no dependence of V
z
on the velocity of the
released gas in the case of the jet, or the ambient air speed in the
case of a passive plume. This contrasts starkly with the current
standard, where results (for subsonic jets) depend both on source
radius and source velocity through the mass release rate. The origin
of the lack of dependence on velocity is very simple. The entrain-
ment rate is determined by the turbulence velocity scale in the jet
or plume. And that scale is proportional to the jet velocity or the
ambient air velocity respectively. So the faster the gas moves, the
faster it entrains, and if one is interested purely in spatial concepts
(like hazard range or hazard volume) then the velocity just cancels
out of the problem. A consequence is that there is no dependence
on storage pressure. This last conclusion is, however, only expected
for subsonic jets; the extension of this analysis to sonic jets will be
given below.
Thirdly, if the hazardous concentration of interest, C
crit
, is small,
thenthe jet has a larger hazardous volume thanthe passive plume e
given the same source radius. This is because the jet velocity dies off
indenitely downstream (under the assumption of no ambient
ow) and so also, therefore, does entrainment.
It is also interesting to consider how an ambient ow would
affect a jet release. Near the source, where the jet velocity is much
higher than the ambient velocity, the jet equations may be taken as
a good approximation to reality. Further downstream, as the jet
velocity decays to the ambient velocity, then plume behaviour may
set in, and the result for V
z
may be between that of the two models
given above. Signicantly in the jet, both concentration and
velocity decay inversely as downstream distance, and so if the
source velocity obeys
u
s
u
a
>
C
s
C
crit
(29)
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 616
then one may assume that the hazardous zone lies entirely in the
region where jet behaviour is dominant. In any event, the jet
formula, will be expected to give a conservative result for any given
source radius.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that one assumption under-
lies all of this analysis: that of turbulent ow. This is expected for
all but the very slowest releases in a very poorly ventilated room,
but if such conditions prevail, then care should be taken in
interpreting this work. The dening quantity is the Reynolds
number Re u
s
r
s
/n or Re u
a
r
s
/n where n here is the kinematic
viscosity of air (approx 10
5
m
2
/s). A 1 mbar overpressure is
expected to result in a release of order 10 m/s release, and from
a 1 mm radius hole therefore Re w1000. For this or larger or faster
releases the assumption of turbulent ow is acceptable. For
a passive plume from a 1 mm hole on a 0.5 m/s ambient ow then
Re w 50 and turbulent ow is not expected (but this implies
a release rate of only 1.6 10
6
m
3
/s and so a hazardous volume
may take some time to build up).
4.3. Sonic and subsonic jets
The above analysis is for subsonic jets. A sonic jet results from
choked ow in the aperture. This occurs when the pressure
behind the breach exceeds a certain threshold. Immediately
outside the breach there is a region where the pressure in the jet
is higher than atmospheric and, because of this, it is generally
considered that no air is entrained in this zone. Atmospheric
pressure is achieved a few hole diameters from the source, and
this point can be considered a pseudo-source for an isobaric jet
which behaves as described above. In this case r
s
in the above
formulae is not the actual hole radius but the radius of the
pseudo-source, which may be somewhat larger, as illustrated
schematically in Fig. 3.
The high pressure zone is relatively small but complicated: the
depressurisation is accompanied by Mach discs and barrel shocks,
as shown, for example, by Ewan and Moodie (1986) in a shadow-
graph picture. Because the zone is generally small compared with
the overall jet volume of interest, the main objective in studying
this zone is to nd the ratio of the pseudo-source radius to the
actual hole radius, r
s
/r
0
. The dependence of the jet volume on the
storage pressure enters via this quantity. The other question of
prime interest is, of course, whether a sonic, or subsonic, jet is
expected in any given source scenario.
Both of these questions are addressed in an extensive review by
Britter (1994) which gives the following guidance.
The important parameter is the ratio of storage pressure to
ambient pressure p/p
a
. For punctured vessels the consensus is that
unchoked ow resulting in a subsonic jet will occur if
p
p
a
B (30)
with
Bh
_
2
g 1
_

g
g1

/
g/1:4
1:89 (31)
Results are not expected to depend signicantly on the ratio of
specic heats, g, and we shall adopt the typical value of 1.4 in
order to provide specic numerical results. In this case choked
ow is expected in releases from overpressures of 0.89 bar or
higher.
For unchoked ow, resulting in subsonic jets, Britter (1994)
reports that an isobaric jet model of the form presented above
may be used with source radius r
s
given directly by the aperture
size.
r
s
r
0
(32)
The source velocity is approximated by
u
s

gRT
a
_

_1
_
2
g 1
_
_
_
_B
g1
g

_
p
p
a
_
g1
g
_
_
_
_

_
h

gRT
a
_

_
2
g 1
_
_
_
_
_
p
p
a
_
g1
g
1
_
_
_

_
33
Inwhich R is the universal gas constant divided by the molecular
weight of the gas, and we have replaced the expected temperature
in the orice by ambient temperature T
a
(as the likely error
involved in this is only of order 10%).
For choked ow resulting in sonic jets, Bitter shows that liter-
ature yields a plethora of estimates of r
s
/r
0
all arising through
a desire to nd a simplied understanding of the very complicated
shock zone. A variety of authors, including Birch, Brown, Dodson,
and Swafeld (1984), Birch, Hughes, and Swafeld (1987),
Britters (1994) own recommendation, Ewan and Moodie (1986),
nd that this ratio increases proportionally with

p=p
a

_
at large
values of p. The underlying reason is simple enough. As the
pressure drops from p to p
a
, then the density drops also, and if,
broadly speaking, the temperature change is bounded, the density
drops by a factor comparable with the pressure drop. If the
velocity in the region from the nozzle to the pseudo-source is
constrained by the speed of sound, then a conserved mass ux
means that the jet cross-sectional area must grow to balance the
density drop, yielding r
s
=r
0
w

p=p
a

_
. The coefcient of pro-
portionality, and the deviation from this asymptotic behaviour at
smaller values of p/p
a
, differ from model to model, none of which
are entirely compelling. In view of this, a pragmatic approach is
simply to set
r
s
r
0

1 K
_
p
p
a
B
_

(34)
with a phenomenological constant K and Britters (1994) review
suggests that K z 0.5 is a reasonable value. This formula behaves
according to the general consensus at large p/p
a
and is consistent
with the unchoked ow result when p/p
a
B.
The ow velocity at the pseudo-source is taken to be the speed
of sound:
u
s

gRT
a
_
(35)
again giving continuity when p/p
a
B.
Fig. 3. Radial expansion of a jet in the depressurisation zone immediately outside the
release aperture.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 617
In both choked and unchoked cases, the (pseudo-) source
density and concentration are
C
s
r
s

p
a
RT
a
(36)
5. The entrainment coefcient
The value of the entrainment coefcient, a, must be found with
recourse to experiment. This is most conveniently done by
comparing the velocity decay of subsonic air jets, and thus avoiding
complications due to density factors and the optimum value of the
pseudo-source radius. Birch et al. (1987) give very clear data for
such jets showing the centreline velocity decay of the form
u=u
s
z4:89 2 r
s
=z (37)
for z more than a few nozzle diameters downstream, from which
we extract b 0.10 and hence
az0:05 (38)
6. Summary of predictions of V
z
6.1. Outdoors
The hazardous volume for outdoor jet releases is predicted by
Equation (28) in which r
s
is the aperture radius for unchoked
releases (see criterion (30)) and a pseudo-source radius (Equation
(34)) for choked releases. For a pure source it is convenient to
dene the vol/vol concentration (or mole fraction)
x
crit
C
crit
=C
s
(39)
so that for the jet release
V
Z

9pr
3
s
16a
_
r
a
r
s
_
3=2
_
1
x
crit
_
3
(40)
6.2. Indoors
The hazardous volume for indoor jet releases is predicted by
Equation (27) with the same source radius considerations. In this
case there is also a dependence on the room background concen-
tration, which we can take from the considerations of ventilation
theory. Taking into account the bounding value of V
z
as the room
volume, V
0
, we can estimate
V
Z
min
_
9pr
3
s
16a
_
r
b
r
s
_
3=2
_
1 x
b
x
crit
x
b
_
3
; V
0
_
; x
b
< x
crit
V
0
; x
b
x
crit
(41)
where the background vol/vol concentration is dened by consid-
erations of ventilation and background mixing:
x
b

q
s
3q
1
(42)
For any given size of hole, this provides an interesting rela-
tionship between the hazardous volume and the room background
concentration. For low background concentration the dependence
is weak: the hazardous volume depends essentially entirely on
the properties of the jet. For higher background concentrations, the
hazardous volume depends more strongly on this: in this case the
hazardous volume depends both on the source and on the degree of
ventilation, and may also be sensitive to the efciency of back-
ground mixing 3. This is discussed further below.
6.3. Walls and obstructions
The above model neglects to consider walls and other obstruc-
tions. Some qualitative arguments about their effect can be made
however.
Small obstructions, such as pipe-work, should not change the
result for V
z
by a large factor. If a jet encounters a small obstacle,
then it may be deected and/or envelop the obstacle. Turbulence
generated in the wake will entrain more air, broadening the jet and
slowing it down. But the turbulent energy responsible comes ulti-
mately from the jet, and whilst the shape of the hazardous volume
may be different, we expect only a small difference in the magni-
tude of the hazardous volume. In general, slowing the jet, and
increasing its radius, will not have a large effect on V
z
as long as the
process responsible primarily involves entrainment of air.
The meaning of small in the above paragraph should be
quantied. It means small on the scale of the jet radius at the point
where the obstacle is encountered. As an example, consider that
Ivings et al. (2008) have performed CFD calculations which found
that a cubic obstacle with the same width as the source diameter,
and placed just over 5 source diameters from the release point in
the path of a jet, increased V
z
by a factor of 2. A spherical obstacle in
similar circumstances had less effect. But a factor of 2 in V
z
is
equivalent to increasing the hole radius (or the linear dimension of
the hazardous zone) by only 25%. Quantifying the effect of the
obstacle in terms of linear dimensions, therefore puts it into
perspective as a small effect. In fact regarding the larger V
z
essentially as a 25% increase in linear dimension invites the
conjecture that it is related to the fact that the linear size of the
obstacle is about 30% of what the free jet diameter would have been
at the point in question.
More signicant may be what happens when a jet encounters
a larger obstacle or a wall
5
. For this case it is pertinent to invert the
question and ask howan obstruction could increase V
z
signicantly.
The dependence on r
s
3
again gives useful insight here. Sonic jets
give a V
z
which increases with pressure because r
s
is larger at higher
pressure: the effective source is larger, but is still pure gas. An
obstruction which could signicantly increase the effective source
radius, without diluting the jet, would also lead to a larger value of
V
z
. It is possible to imagine exotic ways in which this might happen.
For example, suppose that the jet enters a container through a small
hole, is partly blocked by internal obstructions, and leaves through
a much larger hole. If the container prevents any air from entering,
then it acts as a damping reservoir of gas, admitting a fast narrow
jet and letting out a wider slower one, thus increasing the value of
V
z
. Of course in practice one does not expect there to be such an
obstacle in exactly the right place, but consider now a jet directed
from very short range into a corner of the room. One can imagine
that a certain amount of almost pure gas can gather in the corner
itself, and that the reected jet (or jets) may be slower and broader,
and lead to a larger V
z
.
Viewed from this perspective (in terms of linear dimensions) the
process does not have to be very dramatic to have a signicant effect:
a factor 5 in the effective radius, for example, would result in a factor
of 125 in V
z
. CFD provides an appropriate framework in which to
improve upon these qualitative arguments, as will be seen below.
First however, let us note that the release point would have to be
very close to the wall or corner (and directed at it) to produce
a signicant effect. While the room background concentration
remains low, Equation (18) tells us that a jet centreline
5
A model of a wall jet would be useful in this case but is outside the scope of the
current work. For example, the larger V
z
found by Ivings et al. (2008) for a jet very
close to, and parallel to, a wall should be accessible to integral modelling.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 618
Fig. 4. Some of the volumes studied (not to scale), denoted Very small (1 m
3
), Small (8 m
3
), Medium (44.7 m
3
), and Large (400 m
3
), showing obstacles, and the V
z
predicted
by CFD from some of the jets considered. In each case air enters through openings on the right and leaves on the left.
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
1000 100 10 1
1000 100 10 1
1000 100 10 1
1000 100 10 1
average gas concentration at outlets (%LEL)
V
z

(
m
3
)
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
average gas concentration at outlets (%LEL)
V
z

(
m
3
)
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
average gas concentration at outlets (%LEL)
V
z

(
m
3
)
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
average gas concentration at outlets (%LEL)
V
z

(
m
3
)
a
b
c
d
Fig. 5. Predictions from CFD (lled symbols) and the integral model QUADVENT (hollow symbols) for V
z
plotted against the concentration at the ventilation outow. Points
corresponding with different jet releases and ventilation rates are included in each gure. Circles e very small enclosure, Diamonds e small, Squares e medium, Triangles e Large.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 619
concentration of 1% (say) is achieved when z is about 500*r
s
. For
r
s
1 mm, that would mean that the jet must be released within
about 0.5 mof the wall for the wall to have a signicant effect on V
z
.
7. Comparison of the integral model with CFD results
The current standard explicitly allows the use of CFD modelling
to estimate V
z
, though it makes no mention of the kind of integral
modelling presented above. It is therefore appropriate to compare
our results with those of CFD computations.
7.1. Unobstructed jets in a room
Ivings et al. (2008) have performed CFD computations in rooms
of different sizes with air entering through one or two apertures in
one wall, and leaving through one or two in the opposite wall. In
some cases there was an obstacle within the room in the form of
either a large rectangular parallelepiped, or a large cylinder, at
assorted positions. Jet releases were studied varying the position of
the source, the direction of the jet, and the release rate. They also
studied a variety of these congurations experimentally. The good
agreement found lends condence to the CFD results in the whole
set of scenarios studied.
As a validation exercise on the simple integral model QUADVENT,
let us look at a subset of the scenarii where the jet did not imme-
diately impinge on a wall. These are described as very small,
small, medium andlarge, according to the roomsize, andinthe
last twocases, the roomcontaineda large obstacle, as showninFig. 4.
In each case the jet is fairly central in the room and ventilation
inlets and outlets are on opposite walls with the jet in between. There
is no reason to assume poor circulation within the room and so we
take 3 1. Graphs of predictions of V
z
using QUADVENT and CFD
against theconcentrationat the outlet are showninFig. 5for a number
of different jet sources and ventilation rates as documented by Ivings
et al. (2008). Especially in view of the fact that no parameters have
been tuned, the agreement is excellent. It could be improved further
with only a slight increase in the QUADVENTs entrainment coef-
cient, but the agreement (and, as it turns out, veryslight conservatism)
using the predetermined entrainment coefcient more than
adequately demonstrates the validity of the integral model approach.
7.2. Jets with a greater degree of obstruction
Ivings et al. (2008) also consider, as their most severely
obstructed case, a release directed at a wall and within the small
space, 50 cm wide, between the rectangular object and the wall.
This results in a signicantly larger value of V
z
as would be expected
from the discussion presented with the summary of integral model
predictions. It is interesting that this might be approachable in
integral model terms, based on the relative dimensions of the free
jet and the space into which it is directed, but following this
conjecture is beyond the scope of the current work.
8. Conclusions and recommendations
We have presented a simple integral model of a gas jet in the
context of Hazardous Area Classication (HAC) relevant to
the standard IEC 60079-10-1, 2008. The standard is centred on the
estimation of a hazardous volume, the magnitude of which is used
to classify the degree of ventilation and hence in turn the HAC.
However, the formulae for V
z
given in the current standard are not
scientically based, and in general cannot be expected to produce
results that reect reality. Furthermore V
z
isnt even a measure of
the degree of ventilation as it depends both on the ventilation and
on the source of gas.
On the other hand, gas jet models of the kind presented here
have been used routinely for the assessment of major hazards for
many years and, despite their essential simplicity, their scientic
credibility is well established. It is therefore natural to apply them
to hazardous area classication of pressurised ammable gases.
Whilst the basic integral models presented here cannot be
considered innovative, two relatively newfeatures do emerge. First,
an analytic formula for the hazardous volume V
z
dened by the
standard can be derived from the model. Secondly, a standard jet
model can be extended to cover jet dispersion in a room in which
there is a non-zero background concentration of ammable gas.
This results in a hazardous volume which depends not only on the
degree of ventilation of the room but also on the source.
The jet model itself has one free parameter, the entrainment
coefcient, which has been xed by comparison with the data of
Birch et al. (1987). The extension to indoor jet dispersion has been
tested here, by comparing with the CFDresults of Ivings et al. (2008),
with the predetermined entrainment coefcient, plotting hazardous
volume against the concentration in the ow leaving the ventilated
room. The agreement is striking. Given that Ivings et al. (2008) also
compared the CFDapproach with experimental results, this must be
considered as strong support also for the integral model approach.
The analysis presented here also suggests that more may be
gained by going further down this path e specically in regard to
obstructed jets, aerosol jets, and buoyancy. The detailed CFD work of
Ivings et al. (2008) shows that larger values of V
z
can result if the jet
emerges very close to an obstacle of some kind. We have discussed
how the linear dimension of a small obstacle compared with the
diameter of (what would otherwise be) a free jet at that point
suggests an increased linear cloud dimension (on which V
z
depends
as the cube) and this may be a useful topic for a further investigation.
Ivings et al. (2008) achieved a signicant increase in V
z
by directing
the jet into a very conned space constrained not only by the three
surfaces meeting at the corner of the room, but also by a large solid
structure very nearby. The analysis presented here points to the idea
that it may, in future, be possible to allow for such awkward cong-
urations with relatively simple rules of thumb. To that aim we also
recommendfurther work onmodelling wall jets inaventilatedroom.
The focus of this work has been on pressurised gas releases, but
models for two-phase jets (e.g. fromLPGstorage) are used routinely
in major hazards analysis, and these too should be adaptable to
Explosive Atmospheres Hazardous Area Classication.
In the case of pressurised releases, the jet is usually moving so
fast that buoyancy is not an important factor. However buoyant
releases (see e.g. Fannelp & Webber, 2003; Morton et al., 1956) can
be considered in the same framework: there are cases where the
turbulence generated from buoyant plume rise can dominate the
background turbulence in the room, and the methods equivalent to
those developed here for jets can also be used to estimate V
z
in this
case.
Our suggested formulae for V
z
are therefore not the last word,
but do provide a valid approach where the hazard is dened by the
release of ammable gas from a pressurised source. Analyses no
more complicated than the one presented here for gas jets can be
straightforwardly applied to other hazards, and would result in
formulae applicable to a wider range of hazard scenarios.
This publication 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 reect HSE policy.
References
Benintendi, R. (2010). Turbulent jet modelling for hazardous area classication.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 23, 373e378.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 620
Birch, A. D., Brown, D. R., Dodson, M. G., & Swafeld, F. (1984). The structure and
concentration decay of high pressure jets of natural gas. Combustion Science and
Technology, 36, 249e261.
Birch, A. D., Hughes, D. J., & Swafeld, F. (1987). Velocity decay of high pressure jets.
Combustion Science and Technology, 52, 161e171.
Britter R. E. (1994). Dispersion of two-phase ashing releases e FLADIS eld
experiment. Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants report FM89/2 to
the Commission of the European Communities DG XIII.
Bs EN 60079-10-1. (2009). Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres. Part 10.
Classication of hazardous areas.
DSEAR. (2002). The dangerous substances and explosive atmospheres regulations
2002. UK Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 2776.
EU. (1999). Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and
health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres.
Ewan, B. C. R., & Moodie, K. (1986). Structure and velocity measurements in
underexpanded jets. Combustion Science and Technology, 45, 275e288.
Fannelp, T. K., & Webber, D. M. (2003). On buoyant plumes rising from area sources
in a calm environment. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 497, 319e334.
Gant, S. E., & Ivings, M. J. (2005). CFD modelling of low pressure jets for area classi-
cation. Report HSL/2005/11. Buxton: Health and Safety Laboratory.
IEC 60079-10-1. (2008). Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres. Part 10.
Classication of hazardous areas.
Ivings, M. J., Clarke, S., Gant, S. E., Fletcher, B., Heather, A., Pocock, D. J., et al. (2008).
Area classication for secondary releases from low pressure natural gas systems,
HSE Research Report RR630. HSE Books.
Morton, B. R., Taylor, G. I., &Turner, J. S. (1956). Turbulent gravitational convection from
maintainedandinstantaneous sources. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 234, 1e23.
Ricou, F. P., & Spalding, D. R. (1961). Measurements of entrainment by axisym-
metrical turbulent jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 8, 21e32.
D.M. Webber et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 612e621 621