Computer modelling of gas explosion

propagation in offshore modules

Bjern H. Hjertager, Tron Solberg and Kjell 0. Nymoen
Telemark Institute of Technology (SiT) and Telemark Technological R & D Centre
(Tel- Tek), Kj@lnes, N-3900 porsgrunn, Norway

A computer model is presented for gas explosion propagation in complex densely packed
geometries. The governing equations are formulated according to the quasi-continuum principle.
The influence of obstacles is allowed for by specifying volume and area porosities and by
including distributed resistances in the calculation domain. Distributed resistance functions are
given for various types of obstacles, such es flow parallel to, or normal to, rod bundles and single
obstacles, either sharp or rounded. Modified versions of the k-s turbulence model and the
eddy-dissipation combustion model, including the porosity/distributed resistance formulae, are
presented. The method is validated by calculating the pressure build-up in offshore module
geometries and comparisons with experimental data is generally good.

(Keywords: safety: explosion; simulation)

Geometries found in industrial practice may contain a
lot of geometrical detail which can influence the
process to be simulated. Examples of such geometries
are heat exchangers with thousands of tubes and
several baffles, and regenerators with many internal
heat-absorbing obstructions. The geometries found
inside modules on offshore oil and gas producing
platforms are relevant examples and can be modelled in
two ways: using very fine geometrical resolution or by
using suitable bulk parameters. A detailed description
requires extensive computer memory and fast calcu-
lation speeds and is not feasible with currently compu-
ters, and may not be to implement the possible with
future computers. We therefore used the second
approach, which incorporates the so-called
porosity/distributed resistance (PDR) formulation of
the governing equations. This method was proposed by
Patankar and Spalding and has been applied to analysis
of heat exchangers, regenerators and nuclear reactors. ’
Sha et al. have extended the method to include
advanced turbulence modelling2~3.
Hjertager presented a computation method cap-
able of calculating explosion development in volume
containing simple obstructions4,5 and a summary of the
results from calculations of idealized geometries using
this mode16. The characteristics of comparisons with
experiments include the following.
The model is able to simulate the peak pressures
and terminal flame speeds obtained in the large-scale
tube (diameter 2.5 m, length 10 m) for both methane-
air and propane-air with variable concentrations
Received 8 November I991
09504230/92/03016rM0
@ 1992 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
(Moen et al.‘, Hjertager et al. 8*9). Similar favourable
results were found when the simulated results were
compared to the experiments of Lee et al. lo. Their tests
were performed in a small scale tube (diameter 5 cm,
length 3 m) using variable concentrations of hydrogen
-air. The model was, however, not able to predict the
transition to detonation found in the hydrogen-air
experiments.
Ghan et al. performed a series of experiments in a
channel (height 0.203 m, length 1.22 m) with repeated
obstacles and variable top venting”. Bakke and Hjer-
tager used the above model and simulated several of
the test cases”. The model was able to reproduce the
effect of variable confinement on flame speed and the
effect of changing position of the obstacles. Moen et al.
performed experiments in a large-scale top-vented
channel (cross-section 1.8 m X 1.8 m, length 15.5 m)
using acetylene-air, propane-air and hydrogen sul-
phide-air mixtures13. They also present simulation
results using the above-mentioned model and show that
the model is able to predict the difference between the
three fuels. Namely, large flame acceleration in ace-
tylene and no significant acceleration in propane and
hydrogen sulphide. The model was not able to predict
the transition from deflagration to detonation in
acetylene-air that occur at the end of the channel.
Bakke and Hjertager applied the modelI to the
empty volume propane-air tests of Solberg15. The
predictions showed reasonable agreement for peak
pressure versus vent area for three different volumes
(3.6 1,35 m3 and 425 m3).
Bjorkhaug et al. used the model to analyse the
experimental data from the radial vessel geometry with
variable top venting l6 . They found good correlation

J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3 165

Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: B. H. Hjertager et al.

between model prediction and experimental data of /FLUID SURFACE AREA

pressure.
In the original form this method is not able to
handle the complex geometries mentioned above.
However, the computation method may be extended to
include the PDR formulation given by Patankar and
Spaldingl .
To validate a computation method based on the
PDR formulation, good experimental data are needed
and these are scarce realistic industrial geometries.
Hjertager et al. performed a series of tests in a 1:5 scale
offshore module geometry, where variations in fuel,
venting arrangements, internal equipment layout, etc.
were t&ted17.
A model based on the Hjertager mode14,5 is
presented and extended. The extended model uses the
PDR formulation and may therefore be used for gas
explosion prediction in complex three-dimensional
Figure2 Control volume showing surface porosity in x direction
geometries found in industry. The method will be
validated against experimental data collected in 1:5
scale module geometries”.
We can produce similar expressions for the porosities in
the y and z directions.
Governing equations
All the volume/area fractions (porosities) will have
Volume and area porosities values from 0.0 (completely blocked) to 1.0 (com-
The presence of geometrical details modifies the pletely open).
governing equations in two ways. First, only part of the
total volume is available to flow and secondly, solid Mass and momentum conservation
objects offer additional resistance to flow and addi- Applying the mass conservation principle for the
tional turbulence production. Considering the control control volume shown in Figures I and 2 gives the
volume shown in Figurel, a volume fraction or following equation:
porosity occupied by the fluid can be defined as:

fi” =
v,+
vfvs = Vf

Axhyhz
(1)
The momentum equations for the Ui component may,
Here Vf is the volume of fluid and V, is the volume of for the situation given in Figures I and 2, be written as:
solid obstructions. Similarly, area porosities in each of
the three coordinate directions may be defined.
T& (BvP”i) + $, (PjP”jui) =
Figure2 shows the control volume with an area I
porosity in the n direction. This is expressed as:
- Pv z
ap+ & (Bjaij) + PvPgi + Ri
p _ auidjsutiace
dYdz
(2) I
x
AyAz (4)
Here U, is the velocity component in the xi coordinate
direction; p is the pressure, p is the density; oij is the
turbulent flux of momentum at the control volume
surfaces; gi is the gravitational acceleration in the xi
direction and Ri is the additional frictional resistance
caused by obstacles located inside the control volume.
The resistance per unit volume in the Xi direction,
R i, may be expressed as:
Ri = - fi * A,;# Uil Ui (5)
where A,,, is the so-called wetted area of the obstruc-
tions per unit volume. The friction factor fi may
depend on parameters like velocity, porosity, typical
dimension or hydraulic diameter, pitch between obs-
tacles, obstacle shape and orientation.

Resistance through rod bundles. If the obstacles may

Figure 1 Control volume showing part occupied by solid objects be classified as flow through a rod bundle, two different

166 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 7992, Vol5, No 3

 Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: B. H. Hjertageret al.

mddes of flow may be identified, i.e. flow parallel to

the rod bundle or flow normal to the rod bundle. For
parallel flow the friction factor formula to be used are
given by Patankar and Spalding ” :
Here Jj,i is the mass diffusive flux of species mi and Ri is
fi = 0.048.Re;0.2 (6) the rate of production by chemical reaction of the
species inside the control volume. Since the obstacles
where Re, = pi Vi1 - L&.,/p1 is the Reynolds number
inside the control volume are solid and therefore
based on the hydraulic diameter Dh of the space
impervious to mass transfer, no additional source term
between the rods. For normal or cross flow through the
appears in this equation. The only influence of obsta-
rod bundle the following formula may be used6 :
cles, other than reduced volume and areas, is enhanced
mixing through the surfaces of the control volume
0.11
Re;“.‘S expressed by the mass flux Jj, i.
(7)

I}
0.5 1.08
3; -1
[O Turbulence and combustion models
where Re, = pi U,l * D/p1 is the Reynolds number Turbulence. In Equations (5), (10) and (12) above,
based on the average rod diameter D. P is the average the stress tensor oi,j and the fluxes Jh,i and Jl,, acting on
pitch between the rod obstacles. the control volume surfaces shown in Figures 1 and 2,
must be modelled. For this we use the k-e turbulence
Resistance due to single objects. If there is only one
model which determines the distribution of the kinetic
obstacle inside the control volume, the additional
energy of turbulence, k, and its rate of dissipation, E.
resistance can be calculated as flow over a blunt body.
The diffusive fluxes and stresses are modelled accord-
This may be expressed as3 :
ing to:
1
R,=-C+JU;.Ai
(12)
Here A, is the frontal area per unit volume of the solid
and
body and CR is the drag coefficient for the body. We
can see that the resistance goes to infinity as the
porosity approaches zero, thus imposing zero velocity
at the solid obstruction. The drag coefficient may attain
Here 8, = 1 if i = j and 6, = 0 if i # j. An effective
various values dependent on the shape of the obstacle.
viscosity peff and an effective Prandtl/Schmidt number
For a sharp edged obstacle CR is 1.2, whereas for
o@ have been introduced. The effectiire viscosity is
rounded obstacles like a tube or a sphere CR is 0.5.
related to the two variables in the turbulence model, k
Energy and chemical species conservation and E, as:
The first law of thermodynamics applied to the control
p&=K+C,,p$ (14)
volumes given in Figures I and 2 reads:
C, is a constant taken to be 0.09 (Launder and
Spalding”). The conservation equations that deter-
mine the distribution of k and E read:
- 6 (PjJh,j) + A z+ AS* + 0 (9)
$ (Pv~k)+ & (BjPUjk)=
Here h is the enthalpy; Jh,j is the enthalpy diffusive flux
at the boundaries of the control volume: Sh is the
frictional losses in the fluid inside the control volume;
’ $(eS) + - G &pe (15)

Q is the heat transfer rate between the fluid and

internal obstructions in the volume.
E(BvP) + & I
(PjP"jE) =

The distributed heat transfer may be expressed as:

0 = - a(T - T,)
Where CYis a heat transfer coefficient per unit volume,
analogues to the friction factor; T is the fluid tem-
perature and T, is the surface temperature of the solid
obstructions. Some of these cr;functions may be found
in the report by Sha and Launder3.
The conservation principle for a chemical species
applied to the situation given in Figures1 and 2 will
result in the following conservation equation for the
mass fraction of a chemical species, m,:
(10)
The two new constants, C1 and CZ, are given the values
1.44 and 1.79, respectively. The Schmidt numbers ok
and u, are given the values 1.0 and 1.3, respectively,
whereas the other Schmidt/Prandtl numbers are put
equal to 0.7. The generation rate of turbulence, G,
consists of two parts. One part, Gs, is related to the
stresses on the surfaces of the control volume given in
Figures I and 2 and another part, GR, is related to the
internal frictional resistances caused by the solid

J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3 167

Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation:
obstructions inside the volume. The first
expressed by:
GS = Bvoij
au,
ax_
I
This is the same production rate term which is usually
found in non-obstructed situations (when & = 1.0).
The second part is proposed by Sha and Launder3 and
is expressed as:
In the above expression, U,, V, and W, are the
effective slip velocities chosen to take account of the
fact that the flow in the viscous sublayers close to the
internal obstructions does not contribute to the genera-
tion of turbulent kinetic energy. The slip velocity is
usually taken as a fraction of the fluid velocity
expressed as:
u,* = uiYi
C, and Ca are constants in the order of unity. A, is the
wetted area of the obstacles inside the control volume
per unit and Ai is the frontal area per unit volume for
the case of a single,obstruction. CB is taken to be half of
the corresponding CR value given above. This assump-
tion indicates therefore that half the pressure drop
across a single obstruction goes to generation of
turbulent kinetic energy. In densely packed areas the
&-equation is not solved. Instead, a fixed length scale is
prescribed according to:
l=C,,.Dh
Where Dh = 1.0/A,. The dissipation is related to the
length scale and the turbulent kinetic energy as:
k 312
&=Cp-
1 (21)
The constants are given the following values: CB
= OS& C, = 2.0; yi = 0.5; and Ch = 0.1. Ca is de-
pendent on the shape of single obstructions as indicated
above. It should be mentioned that Sha et al. use a
slightly different expression for GR than given above’.
The ‘best’ expressions to be used in an explosion
computation must be determined after performing
validation calculations.
Combustion. Combustion is treated as a single-step
irreversible chemical reaction with a finite reaction rate
between fuel and oxygen. Hence, the reaction scheme
may be written as:
1 kg fuel + s kg oxygen + (1 + s) kg products
Here s is the stoichiometric oxygen requirement to
burn 1 kg of fuel. This simple reaction scheme results in
mixture composition being determined by solving for
only two variables, namely mass fraction of fuel, mfu,
and the mixture fraction, f.
168 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3
6. H. Hjertager et al.
part is
(17)
(24)
Here RI, is the time mean rate of combustion of fuel,
whereas Tti and Tr are the effective turbulent exchange
coefficients. The basis for this to be valid is that the
Schmidt numbers are equal for all species, an approxi-
mation which is often found in turbulent flows.
The mixture fraction is defined as:
(25)
where 5 is a conserved combined variable of, for
example, mass fraction of fuel, mru and mass fraction of
oxygen, mo,, expressed as:
(19)
E, is the value of 5 at a fuel-rich reference point, for
example a fuel leakage point in the domain, and Em is
the value of E at an oxygen-rich reference point, for
example the ambient air condition. For a homogeneous
premixed system the mixture fraction will be constant
in the domain of interest and consequently only the mfu
equation needs to be solved.
The rate of combustion is modelled according to
the ‘eddy-dissipation’ concept by Magnussen and Hjer-
tageP, with the ignition/extinction modification
introduced by Hjertager’ and the quasi-laminar com-
(20) bustion modification introduced Bakke and Hjer-
tage? . If the local turbulent Reynolds number, based
on the turbulent velocity and length scale, is less than a
critical value, the rate of combustion is calculated
according to:
S
Rf, = - & * Alamnt Lam Pmiim (27)
6,
Here n, is the enhancement factor related to the
wrinkling of the laminar flame and this factor is
proportional to the radius of flame propagation up to a
maximum radius of 0.5 m. The enhancement factor is
1.0 for a radius of 0 m and is 2.5 for radii larger than
0.5 m. Slamand $ are the laminar burning velocity and
thickness of the laminar flame. Alam is a constant with a
value of 7. If the local turbulent Reynolds number is
larger than the critical value the rate of combustion is
calculated according to the eddy dissipation approach
modified by the extinction/ignition criteria.
Two time scales are defined, namely the turbulent
(22) eddy mixing time scale, z, = k/E, and the chemical
time scale:
rch -(pmfJa~(pmO,)b w
Also, an ignition/extinction criterion is defined when
 Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: 6. H. Hjertageret al.

the two time scales are in a certain ratio modelled using approximately 100 obstructions for the
(t,,,/t,)* = D,. The rate of combustion is thus calcu- compressor module and 135 for the separator module.
lated as: Computer-aided design (CAD) software, named Auto-
CAD, has been used to represent the geometry and to
Rf,=O when tch > D, prepare input files for the EXSIM code. Figures 3 and 4
te show the geometry as represented in the calculations
zch
Rfu = - /3,: pmlim when - G Di, (29
=,

where mlirn is the smallest of three mass fractions,

namely fuel, mfu, oxygen mo,/s, or mass fraction of
fuel already burnt, mti,b. A and Di, are two constants
with values 20 and 1000, respectively.

Solution procedure
Figure 3
It is noted that all conservation equations have the
same general form. Solution of these equations is
performed by finite-volume methods. Details of the
computation method are given by Hjertager4. Only a
brief description of the solution method is given here.
The calculation domain is divided into a finite
number of main grid points where the pressure p,
density p, enthalpy h, mass fraction of fuel mti,
mixture fraction f, the two turbulence quantities, k and
E, and the volume porosity &, are stored. The three
velocity components U, V, W and the three area
Figure 4 View of the separator module
porosities &, BY, p, are, on the other hand, stored at
grid points located midway between the main points.
The conservation equations are integrated over control
volumes surrounding the relevant grid points in space,
and over a time interval At. The integration is
performed using upwind differencing and implicit lOOO-
formulation.
The result of this is a set of non-linear algebraic
equations, which are solved by application of the well
known t&diagonal matrix algorithm used along the
three coordinate directions. Special care has been
7
taken to solve the pressure/velocity/density coupling of
the three momentum equations and the mass balance. :
- loo-
The ‘SIMPLE’ method developed by Patankar and
s
Spalding for three-dimensional parabolic flows’* has t
been extended by Hjertager to compressible flows4 and z
a
is used to handle this coupling. The method introduces Y
I
a new variable, the so-called pressure correction which 0.
makes the necessary corrections to the velocity com-
ponents, pressure and density to make them obey the lo-
mass balance constraint at the new time level. The
pressure correction is determined by solving a set of
algebraic equations derived from the linearized
momentum equations and the mass balance equation.

Capabilities of gas explosion model t

11
0
I
1
1
2 3
I I
4
Geometries
The model given above is put into a three-dimensional Vent parameter (A/ V1’3)
computer code named EXSIM, and used to simulate Figure5 Peek pressure as function of vent parameter for
the module data of Hjertager et al. “. The compressor centrally ignited explosions in the compressor module. Com-
and separator modules were modelled by using a grid parison between experiment (open symbols] and simulation
(filled symbols). 0, 0, Propane: 0, n , methane; A, A, methane
42 x 14 x 14 points in the length, height and width 1:33 scale: *, t, methane, empty module: 0, +, propane,
directions, respectively. The internal equipment was empty module

J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3 169

Computer modeliing of gas explosion propagation: 6. H. Hjertageret al.

for the compressor and separator modules, respect- 1

ively. 4

Gas clouds and ignition

The simulations were carried out using stoichiometric
clouds of methane-air or propane-air that covered the
whole of the free space in the modules. Ignition was
modelled as a point ignition. At the ignition point it was
assumed that a fraction of the fuel was burnt at the time
of ignition. The ignition point was the same as in the
experiments, namely centrally at the upper deck of the
modules.

Influence of variable venting

Figure 5 gives the simulated and measured peak pres-
sure data in the 1:33 and 15 scale compressor modules
and Figure 6 gives the same data for the separator
module. The figures show variation of peak explosion
pressures inside the modules for centrally ignited
clouds as function of the vent parameter, A&2’3. It
can be noted that the predicted general trends are in
good accordance with the measurements. The com-
puter model is able to predict the following charac-
teristics found in the experiments: variation of peak
pressures with the vent parameter; difference between
pressure build-up in methane-air and propane-air 1:33 1:s 1 :l
explosions; influence of two scales, i.e. 1:33 and 15;
Scale

Figure 7 Peak pressue versus scale for methane-air explosions.

0, Experiment, A/V*/” = 0.46; n , simulation, A/V213 = 0.46; 0.
experiment, A/V@ = 0.92; 0, simulation, A/W/J = 0.92

influence of internal process equipment on the violence

of the explosion.
Although the general trends are predicted well,
there are discrepancies between experiments and simu-
lations. This is especially seen for the compressor
module cases (Figure5) with vent parameters larger
than about 2.0 and for the 1:33 scale methane-air tests
with a vent parameter of about 3.0 for both modules.
The comparisons between experiments and simulations
t
indicate that the agreement on average is + 40%, but
for some cases there are underpredictions by a factor of
ten.

Znfruence of scaling
Figure 7 show comparison between predicted and
measured peak pressures for methane-air clouds as
function of scale. The figure also shows the predicted
extrapolation to full scale. The predicted peak pressure
increases with scale. In 15 scale the peak pressures
were between 300 and 900 mbar, whereas the pressures
for 1: 1 scale is between 2 and 3 bars.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 8 shows the predicted peak pressures in the
Vent parameter (A/V*) full-scale separator module for both methane-air and
Figure6 Peak pressure as function of vent parameter for propane-air explosions. Figure 8 is therefore the scaled
centrally ignited explosions in the separator module. Compari- up version of Figure 6. In Figure 8 the predicted peak
sons between experiment (open symbols) and simulations overpressure for propane-air explosions is increased
(filled symbols). 0, 0, Propane; 0, n , methane; A, A, methane
1:33 scale; *, *, methane, empty module; 0, +, propane, from about 1.5 bar for the 15 scale to between 7 and 8
empty module bars for the 1:l scale. The figure also shows the

170 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3

 Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: 6. H. Hjertager et al.

importance of having the vent area distributed along

the longest wall.

Pressure time histories

Figure 9 shows the pressure time histories for the 15
scale separator module using propane-air cloud. The
figure shows that the peak pressure is found at the
centre position (p’) and amounts to = 1.4 bar. The
pressures at the two ends pl and p3 are smaller and
amounts to 1.2 and 0.9 bars, respectively. Figure 10
shows the same three pressure time histories for the full
scale separator module. The figure shows that the peak
pressure is now increased to = 8 bars (pl) and this is
located at the end of the module. The pressure in the
centre of the module, p2, is E=6 bars, whereas the
pressure at the other end, p3, is = 3 bars. It is noted Time (ms)

that the pressure distribution is much more non-uni- Figure9 Pressure versus time at three different positions along
the module I:5 scale separator module. Propane-air cloud. -,
form in the 1: 1 scale compared to the 1:5 scale. pl;---,p2;--,p3

Contour plots
Figures I1 and I2 and show contour plots in the
xz-plane of the 15 scale compressor module with a
propane-air cloud ignited centrally on the lower deck
at four instants in time, namely when 95, 75, 50 and
25% of the fuel is left inside the module, respectively.
This is similar to one of the experimental cases (test 87)
reported by Hjertager et al. “. The propagation of the
b 5.0
2 t

Boo 850 900 950 1000

Time (ms.1
Figurelg Pressure versus time at three different positions
along the I:1 scale separator module. Propane-air cloud. -, pl;
---,p2;-,p3

flame visualized by the contours of the mass fraction of

products, resembles the propagation they reported.
This means that the flame starts out as a hemisphere
and shoots through the openings in the mezzanine deck
(Figure lla). The flame exits the module first at the
lower deck (Figure IIb) and later at the upper deck
(Figure 12a). The turbulence velocity is at a maximum
of = 16-17 m s-r in Figure lla and b increases to
= 30 m s-l in Figure 12a and continues to > 90 m s-t
in Figure 12b. The turbulence is largest behind the
beams that support the mezzanine deck. It is also seen
from the pressure contours that the peak pressure is
I I I I I A
0 1 2 3 4 5 located at the upper deck. This is shown in Figure I2a
and b. The result of this is that the flow is directed
Vent parameter (A/V-) downwards towards the lower deck.
Figure 9 Peak pressure as function of the vent parameter in tire
full-scale separator module. 0, Propane, simulation; n,
methane, simulation; +, propane, empty module, simulation; Concluding remarks
+#, methane, empty module, simulation; l , propane, three
louvred walls, simulation; \ methane, three louvred walls, A computer model capable of analysing the processes
simulation which occur in turbulent gas explosions inside complex

J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3 $71

Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: 6. Ii. Hjertager et al.

“,N - o.om em mx - 0.049 Em INN - 0.000 K9,lWS ,W - il.026 K9mws

I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I

(III4 - o.auKJPNm9 mx- 0.276 K-11(0 MlN - 0.02 lvs lmx- 17.09 M

b
I
t

I 3 I I I 1 I I !

~...l”‘._.._‘_ ..“‘,... _ . . . . _ ““,......’ 7

ii

HIN - o.mo m m- 0.314 mm tllN - o.oooK9mws mx- 13.614 KCrrmf

NM - o.mo- 11101- 0.278 -0 “1” - 0.09 M m- 16.49 W’S

Figure 11 Contour plots in the xz-plane for the 1:5 scale compressor module. (a) 95% of the fuel left in the module, (b) 75% of the fuel
left in the module

172 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3

 Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: B. H. Hjertager et al.

n,* - o.ooo m mK- a.581 mm “,H - 0.000 KWlQP3 IRX - 6l.Sza Kwlaa

I I . .. . _: _

nin - 0.030- mx- 0.270 KUUIIO nlw - 0.02 n/s m- P.sD ws

r ....‘...._ ...._ .,“.,..““.‘_ .“.,..‘....~

W-ROT VmJl - 794.4 n/s

2;:
.,. :(
r . . . ..‘I-. I..._
.’
._._. I’...._..
_ ._..
~_._...
:_.
~

WI - -0.050 BRI mx- 0.9% om “1” - o.LlmKlunWs mx- 22.042 lIGm15

I. 1 , I I 1 . :. :.
:_,_,..::z.
‘. . ,..’ _:

7_ _ .....
1” . . . . . . T-“‘l‘ . . . .

rc,” - o.moKGPalKo tax- 0.2.nl Komhs n1n - 0.02 ws ml- 82.34 w!i

Figum 12 Contour plots in the xz-plane for the 1:5 scale compressor module. (a) 50% of the fuel left in the module, (b) 25% of the fuel
letI in the module

J. loss Rev. Process Ind., 7992, Vol5, No 3 173

Computer modelling of gas explosion propagation: B. H. Hjertager et al.

congested geometries is presented. Computations were 7. Moen, I. O., Lee, J. H. S., Hjertager, B. H., Fubre, K. and
reported which compare the computer model with Eckhoff, R. K. Cornbust. Flame 1982,47,31-52
8. Hjertager, B. H., Fuhre, K., Parker, S. J. and Bakke, J. R.
several sets of experimental data relevant for offshore Progr. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New
situations. The agreement between predictions and York 1984,94,504-522
measurements is in general good. However, more work 9. Hjertager, B. H., Fuhre, K. and Bjorkhaug. M. Combusr. Sci.
Technol. 1988,62,239-256
is needed to develop and verify the porosity/distributed 10. Lee, J. H. S., Knystautas, R. and Freiman, A. Cornbust. Flame
resistance model for explosion propagation in high 1984,56,227-239
density obstacle fields; to improve the turbulent com- 11. Chan, C., Moen, I. 0. and Lee, J. H. S. Combust. Flame 1983,
49,27-39
bustion model and to develop a model for deflagration 12. Bakke. J. R. and Hjertager, B. H. The effect of explosion
to detonation transition. venting in obstructed channels, in ‘Modeling and Simulation in
More experimental data are needed to enable Engineering’, Elsevier Science Publication, Amsterdam, 1986,
pp. 237-241
verification of the model in high-density geometries 13. Moen, I. 0.. Sulmistras, A., Hjertager, B. H. and Bakke, J. R.
using homogeneous as well as non-homogenous fuel Turbulent flame propagation and transition to detonation in
-air clouds. large fuel-air clouds, 21st Symposium (Int.) on Combustion,
The Combustion Institution, Pittsburgh, 1986, pp. 1617-1627
14. Bakke, J. R. and Hjertager, B. H. ht. J. Num. Methods Eng.
1987,24,129-140
Acknowledgement 15. Solberg, D. M. Gas explosion research related to safety of ships
and offshore platforms, in ‘Fuel-Air Explosions’, University of
The work on gas exposions at SiT/T.el-Tek is financially Waterloo Press, Ontario, 1982, pp. 787-819
supported by Shell Research Ltd. 16. Bjorkhaug, M., Bakke, J. R. and Hjertager, B. H. Calculation
of gas explosion in radial geometry using PLACS-ICE-ZD, Chr.
Michelsen Institute, CM1 Report No. 865403-4, 1986, [also in
References Bjorkhaug, M., PhD Thesis, City Univerisity, London, 19861
17. Hjertager, B. H., Fuhre, K. and Bjorkhaug, M. J. Loss Prev.
1. Patankar, S. V. and Spalding, D. B. A calculation procedure for Process Ind. 1988,1,197-205
the transient and steady-state behavior of shell-and-tube heat 18. Patankar, S. V. and Spalding, D. B. Forsch. Ingenieurwes.
exchangers, in ‘Heat Exchangers: Design and Theory Source- 1978.44.47
book (Ed. N. H. Afgan and E. V. Schltlnder) McGraw-Hill, 19. Launder, B. E. and Spalding, D. B. Computer Methods Appl.
New York, 1974, pp. 155-176 Mech. Eng. 1974,3,269-289
2. Sha, W. T., Yang, C. I., Kao, T. T. and Cho, S. M. 3 Heat 20. Magnussen, B. F. and Hjertager, B. H. On the mathematical
Transfer 1982,104,417-425 modeling of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot
3. Sha, W. T. and Launder, B. E. A model for turbulent formation and combustion, 16th Symp. (Int) on Combustion,
momentum and heat transport in large rod bundles, Argonne Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1976, pp. 719-729
National Labs., 77-73, 1979 21. Bakke, J. R. and Hjertager, B. H. Quasi-laminar/turbulent
4. Hjertager, B. H. Cornbust. Sci. Technol., 1982,41,159-170 combusion modelling, real cloud generation and boundary
5. Hjertager, B. H. Numerical simulation of flame and pressure conditions in the FLACS-ICE code, CM1 No. 865402-2, Chr.
development in gas explosions, SM study No. 16, University of Michelsen Institute, 1986, [also in Bakke, J. R., DSc Thesis,
Waterlcm Press, Ontario, Canada, 1982, pp 407-426 University of Bergen, Bergen, 19861
6. Hjertager, B. H. Modeling, identification and control, 1989, 10, 22. Patankar, S. V. and Spalding, D. B. ht. J. Heat Mass Transfer
227-247 1972,15,1787-1806

174 J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 1992, Vol5, No 3