Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 (1998) 43–48

Gas explosion generated drag loads in offshore installations

R.B. Corr, V.H.Y. Tam
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd., Chertsey Road, Sunbury On Thames, TW16 7LN, UK

Abstract

There is little guidance in place for secondary blast effects for offshore installations. In this paper, the origin of drag loading
due to blast is explained, including the different nature of loading that could be expected for a range of explosion scenarios. The
drag forces on pipe work, pipe supports grated decks and equipment are discussed. Methods on how to calculate these forces are
described.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: Offshore installations; Drag loading; Temporary Refuse; Offshore safety case; Gas explosion

1. Introduction pipework and vessels. Their papers have been directed

The Offshore Industry has spent considerable effort in
the quantification of blast over-pressures and designing
against them mainly because of the perceived threat to
the Temporary Refuge (TR). The explosion over press-
ure has been considered the main design parameter and
less consideration has been given to the effects of the
high speed venting gases. However, these venting gases
can impose severe drag load because of their high velo-
city affecting pipe work and vessels possibly leading to
damage to safety critical systems, loss of containment
of hydrocarbon and escalation of the event.
Structural engineers have become aware of over-
pressure effects through working on the design of blast
walls, steel work and consideration of escalation effects.
The Steel Construction Institute’s “Interim guidance
notes” (SCI IGN) (Steel Construction Institute, 1992) are
used extensively for reference and can be used to evalu-
ate the structural performance of structural steel work
under blast load.
However, drag load is an important secondary design
consideration because of the potential for escalation, yet
there is little guidance available to the pipe work or ves-
sel designer and the methodology for designing for drag
load is not considered explicitly in any formal design
codes.
There have been a few papers published on escalation
scenarios, Eknes & Moan (1994),Eknes (1996) have
addressed many of the effects caused by drag loading on
towards development of escalation scenarios using pro-
babilistic models of failure.
The issue of drag load becomes a more important
design issue for FPSOs which are increasingly being
used in the new province west of the Shetlands. In a
process module on a conventional fixed platform, there
are many structural surfaces for the explosion over-
pressure to act on. The failure of these structural surfaces
could lead to the direct impairment of the TR. On an
FPSO, structural surfaces are few, and so the main
impact of a gas explosion on an FPSO is through drag
load (Tam & Lee, 1997).
This paper seeks to highlight some of the issues asso-
ciated with drag load, identify some of the components
and areas that might be affected and propose some tenta-
tive design guidance.
2. Gas explosions
2.1. Gas explosion: production of over-pressure and
wind
Gas explosion is caused by the rapid combustion of
a cloud of flammable gas. This produces waves of over-
pressure and wind. The origin of these can be explained
simplistically using an example. Imagine one has a rec-
tangular box open only at one end, and initially filled
with a flammable gas. If this gas is ignited at the closed

0950–4230 /98 /$19.00  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain.
PII S 0 9 5 0 - 4 2 3 0 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 5 4 - 5
44 R.B. Corr, V.H.Y. Tam / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 (1998) 43–48
end, the resultant flame would move towards the open
end. As the gas burns, it expands to about seven times
its initial volume. This excess volume is vented out of
the box—thus the explosion produces a wind. If the
venting is not sufficiently fast to remove all the excess
volume generated by the combustion, then an over-
pressure will develop inside the box.
In the above example, the gas flow speed is highest
close to the open end (vent) and lowest at the closed end.
This distribution of gas velocity is also seen in process
modules on offshore platforms. The duration of this
wind depends on the level of confinement. In general,
the higher the confinement, the longer is the duration
and in cases where there is no wall confinement, e.g. on
an FPSO, the duration tends to be short.
2.2. Gas explosion: forces acting on objects in its
path
An object in the path of the explosion will experience
a load from the pressure wave and the wind. As can be
inferred from the discussion above, the nature of this
load depends on its size and shape, its location in a pro-
cess module, and the arrangement of walls, deck and
ceiling within the module.
In an unconfined situation the over-pressure wave
generated will give rise to translational forces on objects
which are bigger or of comparable dimension to the
length scale of the pressure wave. Small objects, such
as small bore pipework only experience drag loading
from wind generated by an explosion. This is because
over-pressure equalizes around the object very quickly,
and the object does not see significant pressure differen-
tial across it.
Grating is a class of objects which does not fit into
the categories of small or large objects; its response to
a gas explosion changes. At low venting speed, the force
across the grating is due to drag. As flow velocity
becomes sonic, the flow through the grating would be
“choked” and significant differential pressure will be set
up across the grating.
2.3. Gas explosion: flow reversal
There are two main phases to the production of gas
flow in a confined offshore module—expansion and con-
traction. In the expansion phase, the burning gas expands
and pushes gas outward towards the vent. After the com-
bustion, excess burnt gas is removed and the remaining
burnt gas cools rapidly and contracts. This creates a
negative pressure which drives a flow in the opposite
direction. In theory, this expansion and contraction oscil-
lation can continue for some time. In practice, this oscil-
lation is damped quickly, so only the initial expansion
and contraction are significant.
In an unconfined situation, e.g. FPSO, flow reversal
also occurs but the mechanism for generating it is differ-
ent. In this case, the over-pressure region tends to be
confined and propagates with the flame. As the driving
force for the flow is over-pressure, the flow reverses after
the passage of the pressure wave.
2.4. Drag forces
This flow reversal also produces drag force direction
reversal. The relative contribution of the two flows
(“expansion” and “contraction”) to the drag force experi-
enced by an object depends, among other things, on its
relative location to the ignition source and inside the gas
cloud. If an object is traversed by the flame at an early
stage of an explosion, then flow reversal occurs early,
and the main contribution of drag force is from the “con-
traction” flow. Conversely, if the object is far away from
the ignition source, the main contribution of drag force
is from the “expanding” flow. Because the density of gas
in the expanding flow is much higher than that in the
“contraction” flow, it is possible for a piece of equipment
to experience higher drag forces a distance away from
the gas explosion than that located within the expanding
flame gas explosion. This is particularly true when we
consider situations where a flammable gas cloud does
not cover the entire volume of a process module.
3. Drag load on pipework
Pipe work is often sited around the periphery of a
module in areas that may become vent paths for the
escaping gases in the event of an explosion. The drag
load on pipe work is dependant on the velocity of the
enveloping gas and its density. In the course of the event
the temperature of the air will rise from ambient, at say
15°C, to 2000°C in less than one-eighth of a second.
During this time several tonnes of burnt gas will be
vented from the module attaining some extremely high
velocities. The velocity of the expelled gas may
approach 800 m/sec, close to the speed of sound in
burnt gas.
The load experienced by an object placed in the fluid
flow can be expressed by Morison’s equation.
F = 0.5·CD·␳gas·V2·D + ␲·CM·␳gas·dV/dt·D2/4
where D is the diameter of the pipe (m), CD is the coef-
ficient of drag, CM is the coefficient of inertia, V is the
velocity of the gas relative to the component (m/sec),
dV/dt is the acceleration of the gas relative to the compo-
nent (m/sec2), ␳gas is the density of the gas (kg/m3) and
F is the force on the pipe (N/m).
For typical pipe sizes and gas velocities the inertia
term contributes less than 1% of the force hence the iner-
 R.B. Corr, V.H.Y. Tam / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 (1998) 43–48
tia contribution may be neglected reducing the equation
to the normal form of the drag equation:
F = 0.5·␳gas·D·CD·V2.
This can be expressed in terms of the gas temperature as
Drag = 0.5·␳amb·(283/T)·D·CD·V2
where ␳amb is the density of the air at 283 K and T is
the temperature of the burnt gas (K).
Tam & Simmonds (1990) investigated the velocity
profile of gases venting from a module using an early
version of the CFD explosion code Flacs. This early
work was used as the basis for calculating the kinetic
energy that a range of typical loose or dislodged objects
picked up by the blast wave might attain and these are
given in Steel Construction Institute (1992).
The Tam and Simmond’s model was based on the fol-
lowing idealization:
(a) that the gas was burnt, and
(b) that the velocity increased linearly to a peak and
then decreased linearly with equal rise and fall times
Plots of the drag magnitude and direction can be eas-
ily obtained from a CFD explosion model (e.g. Flacs)
enabling design values to be determined. Following a
larger number of simulations on many modules and
decks it is now apparent that often in the early stages of
the explosion, where the flammable gas does not cover
the entire volume of the module concerned, the venting
gas is at ambient temperature and although the velocity
is considerably lower than at its peak the higher density
gas can create a peak in the drag load.
Fig. 1 shows a drag plot for a typical production mod-
Fig. 1. Typical drag load plot in vent area.
45
ule where the drag load increases to a peak and then
decreases in a manner similar to the rise in over-press-
ure. However, Fig. 2 shows a case where the unburnt
gas attains a significant velocity before it is expelled
ahead of the explosion creating the second peak.
3.1. Design of pipe work and supports
Pipe work is normally designed for the operational
condition and stresses are checked against a pipe stress
code. Extreme conditions may be considered such as
accidental over-pressurization. These codes do not cater
for an accidental event such as explosion loading where
the only requirement is that the integrity of the pipe be
maintained post blast.
Designing pipe work for blast loading is not a straight-
forward task. Pipe supports are often engineered to allow
for thermal movements using a wide variety of support
arrangements. On an FPSO the flexing of the vessel has
also to be considered. On sliding supports the blast loads
could cause the pipes to be dislodged unless some form
of movement stop is fitted.
On some platforms the flow lines have expansion
loops ensuring that a significant load will be imparted
to the pipe work regardless of the direction of the blast.
Pipe supports may not be configured to take the suddenly
applied loads from a blast, in particular if the movement
stops are engaged.
If one considers a standard pipe run then the simplest
method of analysis will be to apply the peak drag load
as a static load; a dynamic load factor of 1.6 may be
applied if it is required to maintain the deformations or
stresses within prescribed elastic limits.
However, if the increase and decrease in gas velocity
46 R.B. Corr, V.H.Y. Tam / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 (1998) 43–48
Fig. 2. Drag load plot showing double peak.
is approximately linear and assuming that the there are
no sudden changes in the gas density, then the load time
history can be approximated to a triangular distribution
and a standard Biggs approach, as described in Steel
Construction Institute (1992), may be used to estimate
deformations. This approach allows for plastic defor-
mation of the pipe work and supports to be taken into
account.
The final most rigorous approach is to undertake a
full non-linear structural analysis (e.g. using ABAQUS)
which can account for the non-linear, elasto-plastic
dynamic effects with the various support conditions
modelled. It is likely that such an analysis will demon-
strate much higher capacities than either of the simpler
approaches discussed above.
4. Drag load on equipment
Pipes are normally of relatively small diameter with
respect to the length of the blast wave, hence the press-
ure differential seen across a pipe will be small. Over-
pressures of the order of 1–2 bar may be insignificant
with respect to the internal design pressures of the pipe.
The main load will be the drag load generated in the
free field flow.
Vessels such as separators and contactor towers, etc.,
may be sufficiently large to impede the gas flow and
create a pressure differential across the vessel. In a pro-
cess module on a fixed platform, a large separator can
block off venting across it, effectively behaving like a
wall resulting in large over-pressure load. This effect can
be significant even when confinement is minimal, e.g.
on an FPSO. The total out of balance load on the vessel
can be determined by integrating the pressure distri-
bution over the surface of the vessel.
For a vessel to collapse is extremely unlikely. The
most likely failure modes will be either toppling, sliding
or a combination of the two caused by failure of the
holding down bolts or failure of the supporting steel
work. Significant movement of the vessel or its supports
may lead to failure of the connecting pipe work or dam-
age to the nozzles. In either case the result will be a
release of the vessel inventory.
5. Drag load on grating
In many topsides grating has been installed to improve
ventilation and allow venting of possible explosion
gases. Grating allows partial venting of the explosions
allowing some of the gases to pass through. The resultant
loading on the grating is a combination of the over-
pressure differential across the grating and drag load cre-
ated by the gases passing through the voids in the grat-
ing.
A series of tests were commissioned by BP’s ETAP
project at Christian Michelsen Research to determine the
loading on grating and a methodology was subsequently
produced allowing the effective load on grating to be
calculated. The experiments consisted of a section of
grating mounted inside a transient flow tunnel compris-
ing a combustion chamber, a flow conditioning section,
the test section, and a final flow conditioning section.
 R.B. Corr, V.H.Y. Tam / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 (1998) 43–48
The grating was mounted inside the test section of the
tunnel. A schematic diagram showing the construction
of the grating used on the BP ETAP platform is shown
in Fig. 3.
High velocity gases were generated in the tunnel and
passed through the grating. Gas velocities were meas-
ured as well as load on the grating. Measurements were
repeated and found to be repeatable and a calibration
check was also carried out using a 5-cm diameter cylin-
der.
The measurement conditions at the grating was up to
a Mach number of 0.5 and pressure of just over 1 bar.
Results showed that the drag coefficient of the grating
increased with Mach number. Below 0.3 Mach the effec-
tive drag coefficient was 2. This rose to 3 at 0.5 Mach.
Our analysis indicated that this figure is unlikely to rise
above 4.
The main direction of the drag force was found to be
across the grating. The force along the plane of grating
was small, about 10% of that along the direction of flow.
This result was as expected.
The measurements showed that the maximum drag
force on the grating used by the BP ETAP Project was
given by 0.4 ␳V2. It is important to note that this is
specifically for the grating used on the BP ETAP plat-
forms, and is not generally applicable. A more general
methodology for calculating drag loading on grating is
given in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Fig. 3. Dimensions (mm) of the grating tested. Thickness: frame, 4.0 mm; vertical plates, 4.8 mm; horizontal twisted rods, 6.0 mm. Length (in
flow direction), 30 mm.
47
6. Conclusions
The gases venting from a hydrocarbon explosion may
impose significant loads on pipe work and process
equipment. This may lead to failure of safety critical sys-
tems leading to escalation of the event either through
release of hydrocarbons or loss of control functions.
The drag loads, in some cases, are not insignificant
and require careful design consideration. It is worth not-
ing that significant drag loading can result from a gas
explosion on an FPSO, and even with a smaller than full
size gas cloud inside a process module.
It should be ensured that systems have a sufficiently
high degree of robustness to resist the loads generated
by a wide range of possible events and avoid over-
reliance on loads obtained from a limited number of
simulations. It is unlikely the conditions of an actual
event would be identical to those of a design scenario.
Hence, calculated loads are only an indication of the
general levels to be anticipated. The distribution and
direction of the loads for design should be developed by
the engineer in conjunction with the explosion modeller.
There is very little guidance in place to assist the
detailed design of the safety critical systems and design
of vessels and pipe work for secondary blast effects is
often not considered within the codes.
A methodology has been presented for calculating the
effective load on grated floors.
48 R.B. Corr, V.H.Y. Tam / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 11 (1998) 43–48

References CDAgrating = (10*6*10 ⫺ 3 + 24.4*5*10 ⫺ 3)*4

Steel Construction Institute (SCI) (1992). Interim guidance notes for

design and protection of topside structures against fire and
explosion.
Eknes, M.L. & Moan, T. (1994). Escalation of gas explosion events
offshore. Hazards, Safety and Engineering, London 15–16 Nov-
ember.
Eknes, M.L. (1996). Escalation scenarios initiated by gas explosions
on offshore installations—probabilistic cause and consequence
modelling. Doctoral thesis, October, NTNU, Trondheim
Tam, V.H.Y. & Lee, R. (1997). Gas Explosion Modelling of FPSO,
Fire and Blast Engineering Conference, London, 19 November.
Tam, V.H.Y. & Simmonds, S.A. (1990). Modelling of missile energy
from gas explosions offshore. International Conference on the Man-
agement and Engineering of Fire Safety and Loss Prevention
Onshore and Offshore.
Appendix A
Loading on grating under uniform drag
= 728*10 ⫺ 3.
Thus, the drag loading for a square metre of grating is
Draggrating = 0.4*␳V2
Appendix B
Zoning of grating area
The total loading on the grating deck is the value of
Loadgrating integrated over the entire deck.
One way to simplify the quantification process is
through “zoning”. From the calculated values of drag
and velocities, it is possible to divide the grating deck
into a number of areas. Each of these areas experience
roughly similar Loadgrating and can be assumed to be uni-
form through out. This is illustrated in schematic dia-
grams below:

The loading from a gas explosion on grating is mainly

from drag. The drag loading on platform grating can be
calculated assuming the following.

Assumptions

쐌 Differential pressure across constituent elements of

the grating (i.e. plates and cylinders) is negligible.
쐌 The total load on the grating plate is the sum of drag
load acting on individual constituent elements.
쐌 Drag coefficients are similar to those measured under
steady state situations.
쐌 Flow is turbulent.
쐌 The aspect ratio of the constituent element: length/D
is large, where D is the diameter in the case of cylin-
ders, and the width in the case of plates.

Drag loading per square metre of grating

The appropriate drag coefficient (CD)for all the

elements comprising the grating is 2.
Drag loading on a grated deck

Draggrating = 0.5CDA␳V2

where A is the cross-sectional area presented by the grat-

ing to the wind. Total or local load on structure
CDAgrating = (Ncyl*Acyl + Nplate*Aplate)*CDplate. The total loading = sum of (area of zone*loading
within the zone). Local loading is given by values within
For a square metre of grating Ncyl is 10 and Nplate is 24.4 each zone.