erc 2019 program prospectuserc.bakerrisk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/erc-2019... ·...

2019 Program Prospectus for the

EXPLOSION RESEARCH COOPERATIVE

Study 1 Non-Structural Building Debris Hazards Study 2 Evaluating Foundation Response to Blast Loads Study 3 Door Response Tool Study 4 Non-US Building Construction Types Study 5 BRM Tests Study 6 BEAST Program Update Study 7 Bursting Vessel Hazards Study 8 Glass OV Model Study 9 Fire Impingement on a BRM Study 10 PES Separation Testing with a Large Cloud Phase II Study 11 Bent Pole Detonation Indicator Evaluation Study 11 Case Study Study 13 Flammable Cloud Detonation Fraction Evaluation

A Joint Industry Research Program by BakerRisk

Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc.

3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78218-3024

www.BakerRisk.com

Explosion Research Cooperative 2019 Program Prospectus November 2018

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROGRAM SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................6 BAKER ENGINEERING AND RISK CONSULTANTS, INC. – A COMPANY PROFILE ...........................7 ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM .................................................................................................8 CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................9 2019 STUDY PROGRAM..................................................................................................................17 STUDY 1. NON-STRUCTURAL BUILDING DEBRIS HAZARDS .....................................................18 STUDY 2. EVALUATING FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO BLAST LOADS .......................................22 STUDY 3. DOOR RESPONSE TOOL .............................................................................................24 STUDY 4. DEVELOPMENT OF BDL CURVES FOR NON-US BUILDING TYPES ..........................26 STUDY 5. FULL-SCALE BRM LATERAL RESPONSE TESTS ......................................................28 STUDY 6. BEAST PROGRAM UPDATE ......................................................................................31 STUDY 7. BURSTING VESSEL HAZARDS ....................................................................................33 STUDY 8. GLASS OV MODEL ....................................................................................................34 STUDY 9. FIRE IMPINGEMENT ON A BRM ................................................................................36 STUDY 10. PES SEPARATION TESTING WITH A LARGE CLOUD PHASE II .................................39 STUDY 11. BENT POLE DETONATION INDICATOR EVALUATION ...............................................42 STUDY 12. VCE CASE STUDY .....................................................................................................44 STUDY 13. FLAMMABLE CLOUD DETONATION FRACTION EVALUATION .................................46

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. ISO Container Interior Debris Testing (2016 ERC Study) ...........................................19 Figure 2. Example stand-alone tool (left) and Excel version (right) ............................................25 Figure 3. Previous BRM Jet Fire Test at Wilfred Baker Test Facility .........................................36 Figure 4. Proposed Rig Layout .....................................................................................................40

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2019 Fee Schedule ..........................................................................................................10 Table 2. Cost for Purchase of Previous-Years’ Studies ................................................................11 Table 3. Research Studies Available for Purchase .......................................................................11 Table 4. Proposed Test Matrix ......................................................................................................41


1

Prospectus for the

2019 Explosion Research Cooperative

PROGRAM SUMMARY

The Explosion Research Cooperative (ERC), a joint industry research program sponsored by Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc. (BakerRisk), has provided 25 years of research on explosion hazards to the petroleum and chemical processing industry. The ERC is funded by chemical, petrochemical and refining companies interested in gaining further understanding of explosion hazards and predicting their consequences on buildings, process equipment and people. This ongoing program conducts research on explosion prevention and mitigation, siting of occupied buildings, design of protective structures, and structural upgrades of existing buildings. The goal of the ERC is to undertake studies aimed at solving problems common throughout chemical processing industries with the results, benefits, and costs being shared by all participating companies. The ERC is proposing eleven studies for the 2019 program year. Details for each study are provided in this prospectus. A summary of these studies is provided below:

Summary: Study 1 - Non-Structural Building Debris Hazards Non-structural debris hazards are not typically addressed as part of blast loaded building analyses. In the rare case consideration is given to mitigation of these hazards, seismic-based prescriptive guidance is used to provide stronger attachments. This approach has not been validated for blast applications. Additionally, the effects of these hazards are not explicitly incorporated into established occupant vulnerability models. This study will include a testing program to collect test data associated with non-structural debris in blast loaded buildings, development of a design methodology correlated to the test data, and an analytical study to incorporate non-structural debris hazards into the ERC occupant vulnerability model.


2

Summary: Study 2 - Guidelines for Evaluating Foundation Response to Blast Loads The design and/or evaluation of foundation elements for blast-loaded buildings is typically performed using static-load methodologies based on the calculated blast-induced reactions. Therefore, foundations designed for conventional loads are typically considered unacceptable. As a result, unnecessarily large (and costly) new foundation systems are designed and specified. However, it is expected that the performance of most foundation systems designed for conventional loads is, in reality, very good. This can be more accurately determined using a dynamic response analysis methodology. This study seeks to provide guidelines and methods to evaluate blast-loaded foundations in a cost effective manner and avoid unnecessary foundation construction costs.

Summary: Study 3 - Door Response Tool In previous ERC studies, Pressure-impulse (P-i) curves were developed to allow simplified assessment of typical conventional and retrofitted hollow-metal doors. In this current study, a software tool will be developed that will contain these P-i curves for as-built and retrofitted hollow metal doors having a span of 3' (6' for double doors). The tool can calculate the door’s response to blast given a user-specified blast load. This will enable convenient comparison of as-built and retrofitted doors, allowing decision makers to minimize the replacement of conventional industrial doors with high cost, long lead-time blast doors as part of building upgrade projects.

Summary: Study 4 - Non US Building Construction Types The Building Evaluation and Screening Tool (BEAST) program was developed by for the ERC to quickly estimate building blast damage of common building construction types in the United States. As demonstrated by the completion of similar studies in 2014 and 2017, there is a continued interest and need to expand and diversify the current BEAST building library to be more representative of global construction practices. This study will develop building damage level (BDL) curves for three building construction types found in countries outside of the United States. By improving the understanding of the blast performance of the selected building construction types, building siting evaluations and risk analyses conducted in countries outside of the United States can be improved.


3

Summary: Study 5 - BRM Tests This study will produce test data of the lateral response of an unanchored BRM subjected to blast loads from a vapor cloud explosion. Comparisons to predictions using the analytically-based spreadsheet developed for the ERC in 2017 will be made. Non-structural items will be placed inside the BRM for the tests, and their responses will be observed and compared to existing occupant vulnerability models.

Summary: Study 6 - BEAST Program Update In the past five years, the ERC has funded multiple studies focused on the development of building damage level (BDL) curves for buildings that were not represented within the BEAST (Building Evaluation and Screening Tool) catalog of building construction types. However, those studies did not include the incorporation of the new BDL curves into the BEAST computer program. This study will incorporate the recently developed BDL curves into the BEAST computer program to provide users of the BEAST program with more construction type options when performing building siting studies.

Summary: Study 7 - Bursting Vessel Hazards This study will provide comprehensive guidelines for estimating hazards from potential pressure vessel burst scenarios that occur inside buildings. These methods may be implemented into facility siting studies and QRAs.

Summary: Study 8 - Glass OV Model This project will involve the development of an occupant vulnerability model for injuries resulting from glass breakage upon blast loading. Once the methodology is developed and outlined, the procedure can be applied in a QRA or other risk study in a follow-on effort to better understand the risk of occupant injuries due to glass breakage.

Summary: Study 9 - Fire Impingement on a BRM The proposed study will include at least four jet fire field tests on a BRM. The wall will be set up first so the jet fire contacts the building along its 20’ side for the first test; the second test will be conducted on the opposite long wall. The third test will be conducted on one of the short walls with a door. The final test will have the jet fire contacting the 10’ short wall coated with intumescent


4

coating. The results of the proposed tests will be compared to an analytical model developed using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) to provide further validation of the numerical techniques utilized in previous ERC studies.

Summary: Study 10 - PES Separation Testing with a Large Cloud Phase II PES (Potential Explosion Site) Separation Distance is defined as the minimum distance between two congested volumes encompassed by a flammable cloud such that these two congested volumes can be treated as separate explosion events. The ERC has studied this parameter in the past both with full scale VCE tests and analytical studies. The 2014 ERC Study 12, Correlations for Determining PES Separation Distance, identified DFV (Distance to Free Vent) as a possible key parameter to determine the PES Separation Distance for two congested volumes. All previous ERC tests that focused on PES Separation Distance have been performed using a DFV of 6 ft (1.8 m). The proposed study would demonstrate the effect of DFV on PES Separation Distance and help validate the correlations developed in the 2014 ERC Study 12 by doubling the DFV in the donor to 12 ft (3.7 m). Additionally, this study would provide data on flame deceleration and acceleration for a flame exiting a donor rig with a DFV of 12 ft (3.7m).

Summary: Study 11 - Bent Pole Detonation Indicator Evaluation The UK HSE recently published a report that identified “slender columnar objects” (e.g., scaffold poles, fence posts, lamp posts, etc.) as an indicator of whether a vapor cloud explosion (VCE) was a deflagration or a detonation. This study would develop blast and drag phase load curves for disc-shaped clouds with selected aspect ratios. The blast and drag phase load curves for hemispherical and disc-shaped clouds would then be used as input to finite element analysis (FEA) of representative pole geometries to determine if the response of such structures can be effectively utilized as a VCE detonation indicator.

Summary: Study 12 - Case Study A vapor cloud explosion accident has been selected for a case study in the 2019 program. This explosion occurred in a refinery following failure of a pipe and dispersion of vapors into the process area. This case is of interest since the resulting vapor cloud explosion was relatively small. The pipe failure occurred on a processing column above most of the surrounding congestion, and much of the flammable cloud was consumed by fire above congestion.


5

Summary: Study 13 - Flammable Cloud Detonation Fraction Evaluation The fraction of a flammable cloud which participates in a detonation must be specified for the purposes of predicting VCE blast loads in the case where a DDT is predicted. It is commonly assumed that the entire flammable cloud participates in the detonation if a DDT is predicted, which is conservative. This study would quantify detonation propagation criteria related to a flammable cloud’s size and concentration gradients in terms of detonation cell width. These criteria would then be applied to representative dispersions into uncongested and congested volumes. The results will provide a basis for specifying the flammable cloud volume fraction that could participate in a detonation for the cases evaluated.


6

INTRODUCTION

Explosion hazards are of great concern to the petroleum, petrochemical, and specialty chemical industries due to the potentially high consequences of these incidents in terms of injury, property damage, business interruption, loss of goodwill, and environmental impact. In addition, catastrophic explosion accidents have prompted OSHA, EPA, U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other Government agencies to impose stringent safety regulations on industry and levy heavy fines for non-compliance. As a result, explosion accident prevention and mitigation, protection of personnel and critical equipment, and analysis of risk from a potential explosion source are serious issues facing the subject industries. Most companies do not have the internal technical resources to conduct the research to improve the state of the art concerning understanding, predicting and managing the risks of accidental explosions. A cooperative arrangement, utilizing pooled funds from multiple participating companies, is a cost-effective way to conduct industry-wide R&D and to promote the exchange of information related to explosion hazards issues among participating companies. The Explosion Research Cooperative (ERC) was organized by BakerRisk in 1993 to respond to these needs and to address industry-wide explosion hazard technical issues. The projects, scope of work, and proposed budgets are defined by all participating companies at ERC meetings. Four companies participated in the ERC in its initial year. For the 2018 program year, the ERC Participants were:

Air Products DuPont ARAMCO Eastman Chemical Company BP ExxonMobil Celanese Corporation FM Global Chemours LyondellBasell Chevron Citgo

OXY Phillips66

ConocoPhillips Shell Global USA CPNI Total S.A. Denka PE Valero Energy Corporation Dow Chemical Company

This prospectus presents the ERC’s organizational and contractual details, and provides the description, scope of work, budget, and project team for each of the research topics selected for the 2019 program.


7

BAKER ENGINEERING AND RISK CONSULTANTS, INC. – A COMPANY PROFILE

Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc. (BakerRisk) is an internationally recognized firm that specializes in predicting, preventing, and mitigating hazards from explosions, fires, and toxic releases. We provide engineering and testing services to government agencies and private companies who are involved with hazardous materials. Our technical specialties include:

• Prediction of explosion effects • Analysis and design of structures to resist blast • Explosion testing • Materials engineering and reactive chemicals testing • Process safety • Loss prevention engineering • Chemical release modeling • Risk analysis • Accident investigation

Founded in 1984, BakerRisk has experienced steady growth throughout its history. Our headquarters and laboratory are located in San Antonio, Texas; and we have branch offices in Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Canada and the UK. BakerRisk owns and operates two test ranges. The Wilfred E. Baker Research Test Facility, comprising 160 acres east of San Antonio, includes a 9800-square foot high-bay test building, several outdoor test pads, a hardened test cell, and capabilities for custom test services. The facility houses four permanent test apparatus for conducting shock tube testing, uniform static pressure testing, high pressure failure testing and jet fire testing. The 2300-acre Box Canyon Test Facility west of San Antonio provides a unique capability to conduct large scale tests, which include explosion, structural, blast load, and other testing services. Metallurgical studies, laminar burning velocity tests, and other client-driven, bench-scale tests are conducted in our San Antonio Lab. BakerRisk has also developed a number of software tools including SafeSite3G©, BIGGS, VCloud, ISADS, VCEC, BWTI© and QRATool© for dispersion, blast load, structural response, building occupant injury, and risk analyses.


8

Our staff has investigated hundreds of accidents involving a very broad range of explosion types including high explosives, propellants, runaway chemical reactions, bursting pressure vessels, vapor cloud explosions (VCE), boiling liquid-expanding vapor explosions (BLEVEs), dust explosions, electric arc and physical explosions. The first-hand knowledge gained from these accident investigations is invaluable when performing hazards and risk analysis to prevent or mitigate potentially catastrophic situations. Through both research and applied applications, BakerRisk develops practical solutions for explosion hazard problems that meet our clients’ needs for a safe workplace. Additional information may be found on our website at www.BakerRisk.com.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM

The ERC operates on an annual basis. The 2019 program year will run from February 1, 2019 to January 31, 2020. The study topics for 2019 were selected by the 2018 program Participants. BakerRisk is the organizer and program manager. Consultants and subcontractors may be used to augment the BakerRisk staff as required to accomplish the work. The projects listed in this prospectus and their scopes of work were established based on an estimate of available funding for the next year, and any changes are made by vote of the Participants at ERC meetings. New participants to the ERC who join after topics have been voted may specify the allocation of their funds to expand the scope of the current year projects or toward new projects of their choosing. The amount of funding for a given year depends on the number of companies participating in the program. Should the number of Participants exceed expectations, the scope of the proposed studies can be expanded; conversely, if the number of Participants falls short of the anticipated goal, then the program will be diminished accordingly. Scope changes are decided by vote of the Participants. BakerRisk hosts two meetings during each program year in which study results are presented to the ERC Participants for review and comment. These meetings are held at about the mid-point and end of the program year, which also serves as the kick-off meeting for the subsequent years’ studies. In addition to allowing


9

open discussion of the study results, the ERC meetings also promote exchange of information among the ERC Participants, and therefore are an important part of the ERC. The meetings also serve as a forum to propose and discuss topics and scopes of work for future years. Occasionally, a special purpose meeting is called to discuss and decide upon an issue in a timely fashion. A technical report is typically issued for each project, the results of which are proprietary to the Participants of the ERC for a period of ten (10) years from the end of the program year. Other proprietary information in the form of software, presentations, videotapes, etc. may also be delivered for use by Participants as part of the technical findings. From time to time, the ERC may find that it is beneficial to make public the findings of a study; for example, to contribute to the formulation of an industry standard. On such occasions and in order to release the results, it is required to have a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Participants who paid the annual fee during the year the final technical report was issued. Patentable inventions may be generated as a result of these studies. If a patent is filed, BakerRisk will issue a royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive license to each Participant that pays its prorated share of the cost of obtaining the patent. The ERC contract covers patenting, licensing and other intellectual property situations in detail.

CONTRACTUAL INFORMATION

Participation in the ERC is on an annual basis, and all Participants sign an “evergreen” contract upon joining the ERC. In subsequent years, a Participant may renew its participation by paying the annual fee specified for each year. This arrangement continues year-to-year, as long as there is no lapse in participation. If a modification to the contract should be made (for example, to cover a situation not envisioned or not existing at the time the original contract was drawn up), then a contract modification will be issued for all Participants to sign. New Participants New participants that join the ERC after topics have been selected may specify the allocation of their funds for the current year to expand the scope of the current year projects or apply funds toward new projects of their choosing.


10

Companies interested in becoming a participant in the ERC may request a copy of the ERC contract from Ms. Joanna Sobotker at BakerRisk. Ms. Sobotker can be reached by telephone at (210) 824-5960 or by email at [email protected]. A company may become a participant at any time, but the fee increases if you join after January 31st of any given year. Fees are based on company gross annual revenue, and are due and payable upon submission of the signed contract on or before January 31st. The fee schedule for the 2019 program year is shown below:

Table 1. 2019 Fee Schedule

Company’s Gross Annual Revenue

Fee (if paid before January 31st)

Fee (if paid after January 31st)

Over $1 billion $35,000 $40,000

Less than $1 billion $25,000 $30,000

Current Participants In order to renew participation, you must pay the appropriate annual fee by the specified due date shown in Table 1. Your current “evergreen” contract will remain in effect. Invoices will be submitted to participating companies before the start of each new program year. Purchase of Prior Year Studies Companies that are new to the ERC may purchase the results of prior years’ studies. Individual studies cannot be purchased. Rather, Participants may purchase a “package” with all of the studies from a single year, or they may purchase all of the studies from multiple years. The cost per year decreases with purchase of multiple years. A substantial discount from the combined individual cost applies if all study years are purchased. The fees to purchase prior-years’ studies are summarized in Table 2. A list of studies available for purchase is shown in Table 3. Additional details on these studies are available on request. Funds received from purchase of prior years’ studies are allocated to current or future year research studies at the direction of the company that purchased the studies.


11

Table 2. Cost for Purchase of Previous-Years’ Studies

Number of Study Years Purchased

Company Size (Gross Annual Revenue) Over $1 billion Less than $1 billion

1 $30,000 $20,000 2 $50,000 $35,000 3 $70,000 $50,000 4 $90,000 $65,000 all $100,000 $75,000

Table 3. Research Studies Available for Purchase

Program Year

Research Study Topics

2018

Blast Loads in PEMBS Blast Infiltration through Openings in Buildings Convert ISADS to Non-Excel based Software (ISADS-PRO) Thermal Studies to Support Evacuation Planning Caribbean Petroleum Case Study Obstacle Orientation Testing Evaluation of a Correlation for BST Flame Speed DDT Testing and Research Forum Near-Field Blast Loads from Elongated VCEs Adjustment Factors for Non-Ideal VCEs Overhang and Adjacent Building Blast Analysis

2017

Flame Path Sensitivity Analysis Determination of Minimum Distance Required for DDT Tank Farm Blast Loads Surface Area Congestion Testing Vented Enclosure Explosion Testing BDL Curves for Non-U.S. Buildings Guidance on Use of BEAST Window Specification for Blast Resistant Glazing Improvements to Occupant Vulnerability Model BRM Lateral Response Spreadsheet Updates


12

Program Year


2016

BEAST Computer Program Upgrades Load-Bearing and Non-Load-Bearing Masonry Cavity Wall Shock Tube Tests Jet Fire Tests on Wall Systems BRM Occupant Vulnerability Model ISO Container, Cooling Trailer, and Modular Office Full-Scale Tests VCE Testing of "Realistic" Congested Volumes Guidelines for Blast Walls

2015

Full Scale PEMB Tests Additional BEAST Modular Buildings Conventional Door Upgrade Offsite Commercial-Residential P-i Curves Design Guidance for Elevated Process Structures Structural Response Criteria Pedigree Screening for Buildings Subjected to Thermal Loads Gas Fence for Explosion Source Mitigation Large Cloud PES Separation Distance Testing Vented Enclosure Explosion Testing

2014

BEAST Pre-Engineered Metal Building Sub-Types Development of Building Damage Curves for Non-U.S. Buildings Independent Design Verification of Blast Resistant Modules Risk Reduction Retrofits for Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings Convert ISADS to Excel 2010 Review of Occupant Vulnerability vs. Building Damage Data User Defined Construction in BEAST Compilation of Toxic Protection Design Guidance Ethylene/Hydrocarbon Mixture LBV Testing and FLACS Simulations Effect of Obstacle Size (Phase 2) Sleeper and Pipe Rack Testing Correlations for Determining PES Separation Distance


13

Program Year


2013

Overhead Door Evaluation and Retrofit Development Extension of CMU Wall External Upgrade Using Steel Members Engineered Steel Trusses Guidance for FRP and Polyurea Blast Upgrades in Industrial Facilities BEAST Computer Program Upgrades DDT Severity Reduction Study: Medium Obstacle Influence on DDT VCE Testing of PES Separation Distance Extended Examination of Conditions Required for DDT Update of Blast Clearing Spreadsheet Tool (VCE Loads) Accidental VCE Case Study Behavior of Blast Waves in Re-entrant Corners

2012

Tent Damage Model Validation Refined BEAST Models for Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings Building Debris Characterization Using Historical ERC Test Data Glass Hazard Model Improvements Improving Structural Modeling of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Hydrogen/Hydrocarbon Mixture Burning Velocity Testing Impact of Flammable Cloud Outside Congested Area State of the Practice: VCE Blast Load Prediction Potential Explosion Site Separation Distance Effects of Elevated Process Pressures on Leak Potential Effects of Initial Turbulence on VCE Blast Loads External Blast Loads from Vented Dust Explosions

2011

Structural Design Spreadsheet Improvements Thermal Response of Buildings Physics-Based Occupant Vulnerability Model State of the Practice Document - Structures, Phase 2 Far Field Structural Damage from Accidental Explosions Enhanced Prediction of Process Equipment Vulnerability to Terrorist Attacks Surface Applied Masonry Wall Retrofit Shelter-In-Place Performance Specification VCE Blast Loading on Buildings Conditions Required for VCE DDT Flame Deceleration VCE Testing


14

Program Year


2010

Mixed Congestion VCE Testing VCE Blast Load Prediction Gap Assessment Laminar Burning Velocity of Hydrogen-Hydrocarbon Mixtures Toxic Infiltration into Buildings ISADS and BEAST Improvements BRM Performance Specification Full-Scale Structural VCE Testing Tent Occupant Vulnerability Siting Guidelines for Tents Probabilistic Treatment of Building Damage Assessments

2009

Investigation and Refinement of BEAST Steel Building Damage Curves Improvement of Integrated Structural Analysis and Design Spreadsheet (ISADS) Development of a Brittle Unreinforced Masonry Structural Response Model Development of Alternative Window Upgrade Options for Permanent and Modular Buildings State of the Practice in Structural Analysis and Design Database of Accidental Explosions Treatment of Detonation to Deflagration Transition (DDT) in Siting Studies Assessment of Effective Confinement and Congestion Ratings for Rail Yards Vapor Cloud Explosion (VCE) Testing of Intermediate Reactivity Level Fuels Experimental Determination of VCE Flame Deceleration Development of ERC Training Course

2008

Experimental Validation of Blast Response of Trailers and BRMs Metal Stud Trailer Wall Response Testing Simplified Analysis Tool for Blast Response of Tent Structures BEAST Computer Program Enhancements Development of Additional Glass Hazard Prediction Tools Experimental Investigation into the Effect of Obstacle Size on VCEs Effect of Grating on VCE Blast Load Development Vented Enclosure Explosion Testing Estimation of Blast Pressure Infiltration into Buildings through Openings Explosion Accident Case Study Retrofit Design for Conventional Hollow Metal Doors Directional Blast Effects from PVB


15

Program Year


2007

P-i Diagrams for Pipe Racks/Storage Tanks Addition of Vulnerability Model to BEAST Occupant Vulnerability in Portable Buildings Experimental Investigation into the Effects of Real Releases on VCE Severity VCEC Update CFD Modeling of Vented Enclosures ISADS Improvements VCE Accident Explosion Case Study Wood Panel Tests Blast Wall Guidance

2006

P-i Curves for Temporary Buildings TrDOF Structural Analysis Spreadsheet Blast Injury Prediction Model and Spreadsheet (BiPAS) for Modular Metal Buildings Explosion Frequency Determination Construction Cost Database for Blast Resistant Buildings and Upgrades Vented Enclosure Explosion Testing

2005

Development of an Improved Vulnerability Prediction Method Structural Analysis Spreadsheet (ISADS) Improvement Guidelines for Protective Shields Around Buildings Effect of Water Spray/Curtain on Explosion Pressures Web Site Storage of Studies Vented Enclosure Explosion Testing Blast Vulnerability of Process Equipment

2004

Spreadsheet Analysis of Shear Walls Laminated Glass Prediction Tool Explosion Accident Case Study Classifying the Reactivity of Fuels and Mixtures Vented Enclosure Explosions

2003

Vulnerability of Process Equipment & Storage Facilities to Terrorist Attack Guidelines and Input Tools for Using ADINA® Frame Analysis Shielding External Doors from Air blast Integrated Structural Analysis and Design Spreadsheets Building Blast Loads from Vapor Cloud Explosions

2002

Accidental Explosion Case Study Blast Resistant Door Specifications and Testing VCE Testing Blast Upgrades of Masonry Walls


16

Program Year


2001

VCE Fuel Reactivity VCE Aspect Ratio VCE Wave Shape Vapor Cloud Explosion Case Study Two Degree of Freedom Analysis Tool

2000

VCE Blast Prediction Methodology Guidance for Application of VCE Prediction Methodology Enhancement of the Building Evaluation and Screening Tool (BEAST) Facility Engineering Design Practices to Mitigate Explosion Hazards Response of Process Equipment to Blast Loads Survey of Facility Siting Practices and Experience

1999 VCE Blast Prediction Methodology Building Occupant Vulnerability Standard Building Details to Minimize Injuries and Enhance Blast Resistance

1998 VCE Blast Prediction Methodology Blast Response Design Criteria Hollow Metal Door Upgrade Study

1997 Metal Building Upgrades Study Steel Door Testing Study

1996 Blast Capacity Upgrades for Masonry Buildings

1995 Siting Tools for Evaluating Blast Response

1994 Additional Window Upgrades Building Component Failure Criteria Study

1993 Window Breakage Upgrades


17

2019 STUDY PROGRAM

Each year, a new set of potential study topics are proposed to the ERC Participants. These topics are selected based on Participants’ recommendations and BakerRisk observations of industry needs. For the 2019 program year, 35 topics were proposed. Through a screening process, the list of prospective topics was narrowed down and presented to the ERC Participants for review and comment during the 2018 ERC mid-year meeting. A formal vote by Participants was conducted during the meeting to finalize the 2019 study selections. As a result, 13 projects were chosen for the 2019 program, which begins with a kick-off meeting scheduled for February 12 – 13, 2019. The selected study topics are described in the sections that follow. Note that the 2019 study topics are subject to change once the actual company participation and funding is finalized at the start of the 2019 program.


18

Study 1. NON-STRUCTURAL BUILDING DEBRIS HAZARDS

1.1. Background / Project Description

Non-structural debris hazards are not typically addressed as part of blast loaded building analyses. Consideration is rarely given to mitigation of these hazards, and typically seismic-based prescriptive guidance is used to provide stronger attachments. As part of a study for the 1999 Petroleum and Chemical Processing Industry Technology Cooperative (now known as the Explosion Research Cooperative), BakerRisk prepared a report summarizing due diligence procedures for non-structural components, which were intended to reduce the likelihood of injury to building occupants from non-structural components inside buildings subjected to blast loads. Generally, the procedures focused on improving attachments of items such as ducts, pipes, cabinets, fixtures, interior partition walls, ceiling systems, and other items to structural components of the building. The recommended procedures were generic in nature and not based on specific sizes or configurations of supported items. In addition, the methods summarized in the report were predominantly “borrowed” from guidance documents for buildings subjected to seismic loads. There is no known blast load testing that directly support these methods. In 20151 and 20162, ERC studies on full-scale building response to blast loading incorporated a limited number of non-structural components in the test series. Figure 1 shows an example of the displacement of those interior items in comparison to the original locations. These test programs illustrated the potential behavior of non-structural items to blast loading and their associated hazards, but did not study anchorage effectiveness or demands. A separate 20163 study, studied the characterization of occupant vulnerability for interior debris hazards specifically for blast-resistant modules. The objective of the proposed study is to develop a data set which supports the development of a hazard mitigation approach for non-structural debris and characterization of the associated occupant vulnerability. The first goal is to complete a series of tests focusing on the debris generated from non-structural items in blast-loaded buildings. Secondly, BakerRisk will develop a set of recommended anchorage design procedures based on data collected in the test 1 Edel, M. et al., “ERC 2015 Study 1: Full-Scale PEMB Tests,” prepared for the 2015 Explosion Research

Cooperative; BakerRisk Project 01-00760-002-15, February 2016. 2 Horn, B. and Anderson, T., “ISO Container, Cooling Trailer, & Modular Office Full Scale Tests,” prepared

for the 2016 Explosion Research Cooperative; BakerRisk Project 01-00760-054-16, February 2017. 3 Edel, M., “Occupant Vulnerability Model for Blast Resistant Modules,” prepared for the 2016 Explosion

Research Cooperative; BakerRisk Project 01-00760-053-16, February 2017.


19

series. Data from the tests will also be used to validate the methodologies presented in the 2016 occupant vulnerability model for blast resistant modules and to develop occupant vulnerability models for other types of building construction. Finally, guidance will be provided on how to account for the anchorage capacity of interior items in the occupant vulnerability model. The results of the study will be applicable for a range of building types, including conventional and blast resistant construction, blast resistant modular buildings, and other modular buildings and trailers.

Figure 1. ISO Container Interior Debris Testing (2016 ERC Study)

1.2. Approach

A range of shock tube tests will be performed to collect data on the response of wall and roof mounted non-structural items. An analytical study will then be completed using the test data. The analysis will focus on developing recommendations for designing anchorage of non-structural items and enhancing the occupant vulnerability model for interior debris hazards. A description of each test series is discussed below.

1. Wall Mounted Components:

a. Generic Wall Test Series – A generic, elastically-designed wall structure will be mounted in BakerRisk’s shock tube and used to anchor non-structural test items, or representative masses. The generic wall will be designed as a stiffened steel plate to mimic the stiffness and deflection characteristics of a typical exterior structural wall with the ability to be reused throughout the test


20

series. For each test, two non-structural components will be mounted to the wall. Anchorage of items will range from manufacturer recommended anchorage to specific anchorage designs. For each test, the response of the non-structural component will be documented. A total of 8-10 wall tests will be included in this scope.

b. Detailed Wall Test – One or two anchorage patterns, identified in the generic wall test series, will be re-tested using a realistic wall support. A mock-up wall, consisting of typical building components (i.e. corrugated steel panel with an interior finish-out of steel or wood stud framing and gypsum board finishing), will be constructed in place of the stiffened steel plate. A single test will document any differences in anchorage effectiveness due to the representation of the more realistic wall support.

2. Roof Mounted Components – A partial steel frame will be constructed for use at the end of the shock tube. The frame will allow for the blast to sweep over the simulated roof members creating, out-of-plane flexural motion of the roof, in-plane frame sway deflection, and racking motion induced by overall frame sway. Similar to the wall study, two identical items will be mounted for each test using a range of anchorage techniques. A total of 4-5 roof tests will be included in this scope.

All tests will be recorded on video, and where appropriate, reaction forces for attachments will be measured. The test results will be used for developing general guidance for designing anchorage of interior non-structural items to building walls and roofs. The test results will also be used for developing enhancements to the occupant vulnerability models developed in a 2016 ERC study for blast resistant modules and extending this methodology to other types of building construction.

1.3. Benefits

This study will provide substantiated data for designing attachments to mitigate possible non-structural debris hazards in blast loaded buildings. Additionally, the study will correlate the test data with ERC occupant vulnerability models, which incorporate interior debris hazards. As a result, the study will also provide an updated occupant vulnerability model for interior debris hazards.


21

1.4. Project Team

Ms. Jodi Kostecki ([email protected]) will be the project manager for this study. She will be supported by Mr. Michael J. Lowak, who will lead the testing effort, and Mr. Matt Edel. Others in the Protective Structures Section will provide support as necessary.

1.5. Budget

The proposed budget for this study is $130,000.

1.6. Deliverables and Schedule

The proposed effort will be completed within 12 months, and the final report will be delivered at the end of the program year. It is anticipated that the testing phase will be completed in the first 6 months of the program, which will be presented at the mid-year meeting.


22

Study 2. EVALUATING FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO BLAST LOADS


The response of a building’s foundation to blast loads may be calculated in terms of the vertical, horizontal, and rocking motions induced by the reactions from the blast-loaded structure. If the reactions are treated as static loads, many existing foundations are considered unacceptable, while in reality the performance of the foundation may actually be very good. The discrepancy is due to the difference between the assumed static response and the actual dynamic response. Similarly, new foundations for blast resistant buildings designed using static loads are often excessively massive and overly costly. The ASCE blast-resistant design document includes three referenced methods for dynamic analysis of foundations. These referenced methods can be somewhat cumbersome to use, and, therefore, the dynamic analysis of foundations loaded by blast are seldom used in industry.

2.2. Approach

A summary of selected methods for foundation analysis and design for blast-loaded structures will be developed, including procedures for calculating the dynamic structural properties (e.g., foundation effective resistance, stiffness, etc.). A series of calculations for a limited set of example case studies will be performed on example strip, mat, and pile foundations to determine the conditions under which the response and performance of the foundation can be safely assumed to be satisfactory without additional analysis. The methods for performing the analysis (when required) will also be documented in the report. The analysis will include the foundation size, shape, embedment depth, and soil properties.

2.3. Benefits

The resulting guidelines and methods will allow structural engineers to evaluate foundations in a cost effective manner and avoid unnecessary foundation construction.

2.4. Project Team

The project manager from BakerRisk will be Mr. Thomas Anderson ([email protected]), who will be assisted by other members of the Protective Structures Section, as needed.

mailto:[email protected]


23

2.5. Budget

The budget for this study is $35,000.


The deliverable for this study will be a report that includes guidelines and a description of some methods used for design and analysis of foundations for blast-loaded structures. The proposed effort and final report will be completed within one year.


24

Study 3. DOOR RESPONSE TOOL


Over the years, the ERC has funded numerous studies on the assessment and upgrade of hollow metal doors. Most recently, a 2015 ERC study4 compiled a full complement of pressure-impulse (P-i) curves for the most common door types (single or double, 16, 18, or 20 gauge, and as-built or retrofitted) at all five response levels. However, ERC participants currently do not have a convenient method of accessing those curves for evaluation of metal doors.

3.2. Approach

The proposed study will incorporate the P-i curves generated from the previous studies into a user-friendly software tool. The user will be able to select the door type (as-built or retrofitted), size (single or double), and gauge (16, 18, or 20). The tool will then display the P-i curves for the selected door and determine the response level for a given blast load. The user will have the option of selecting either English or SI units for the inputs and outputs. The tool will be provided in two formats: as stand-alone software with a graphic user interface (GUI) and also as an Excel workbook that has the same basic functionality yet without the elegant interface. A mockup up of the software interface for each format is shown in Figure 2.

3.3. Benefits

The study will provide a software tool for structural analysts to evaluate virtually any hollow metal door having a span of 3' (6' for double doors). This tool will also enable convenient comparison of as-built and retrofitted doors, thereby allowing decision makers to minimize the replacement of conventional industrial doors with high cost, long lead-time blast doors as part of building upgrade projects.

4 Powell, D., et al., “ERC 2015 Study 3: Upgrade of Conventional Doors,” prepared for the 2015 Explosion

Research Cooperative, May 2016.


25

Figure 2. Example stand-alone tool (left) and Excel version (right)

3.4. Project Team

The project manager from BakerRisk will be David Powell ([email protected]).

3.5. Budget



The study deliverable will be a software tool, provided in both Excel as well as stand-alone formats, for calculation of door response levels. The study will be completed in 6 months.



26

Study 4. DEVELOPMENT OF BDL CURVES FOR NON-US BUILDING TYPES

4.1. Background and Summary

The ability to rapidly estimate the blast capacity of a building structure has proven to be valuable while performing screening level assessments of large facilities. The Building Evaluation and Screening Tool (BEAST) program was developed by BakerRisk for the ERC to quickly estimate building and structural component blast damage of common building types typically found in the United States. There is a continued need to further expand the current BEAST building library to be more representative of global construction practices. Some ERC studies have already been undertaken to expand the BEAST library. In a 2014 ERC Study,5 building damage level (BDL) curves were developed for three new building construction types: a monolithic reinforced concrete building, a modular building with non-load bearing insulated metal panels, and a building type with masonry cavity walls. In a continuation of the 2014 study, a 2017 ERC6 study developed BDL curves for three additional construction types: a confined masonry building, a permanent steel framed building with insulated metal panels, and a fiberglass portable building. The proposed study seeks to further the development of BDL curves for three additional building construction types found in countries outside of the United States. The selection of construction types to be analyzed in this study will be dependent of feedback received from ERC participants.

4.2. Approach

The BDL curves developed within this study will be presented in a similar manner to those in the current BEAST library. This study will consist of the following tasks:

1. Conduct an initial survey of the ERC participants in order to obtain a list of construction types encountered outside the U.S. that are not currently represented within existing BEAST construction types. Based on the frequency of each building type, the received list can then be refined to obtain a finalized list of the 3 construction types for the development of BDL curves.

5 Holland, Travis, “Study 2: Development of Building Damage Curves for Non-U.S. Buildings,” prepared for

the 2014 ERC, February 2015. 6 Holland, Travis, “Study 6: Development of Building Damage Curves for Non-U.S. Buildings,” prepared for

the 2017 ERC, February 2018.


27

2. Develop SDOF models to represent different components defined for each building category and define appropriate BDL curves for each.

3. For more complex components develop finite element models and define the response when subjected to various levels of blast loading to produce load-damage relationships.

4. Where possible, validate the analytical BDL curves using explosion accident and testing data that is available to BakerRisk.

The results will be compiled to generate BDL curves. Results of these modeling efforts will be presented to the ERC for discussion at the end of the study. If accepted by the ERC, selected new building types may be implemented into BEAST computer program at a later time, under separate scope. Note, the BDL curves developed in 2014 and 2017 are not implemented into BEAST.

4.3. Benefits

Expanding the existing BEAST building type library can provide better damage estimations of building construction types found outside the United States. By improving the ERC’s understanding of the blast performance of these construction types, building siting evaluations and risk analyses conducted in countries outside of the United States can also be improved.

4.4. Project Team

The project manager will be Travis Holland, a Senior Engineer in the Protective Structures Section. He will be assisted by Colten McCampbell and Peter Smith, an Engineer in the BakerRisk Europe office. Please contact Mr. Holland ([email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this study.

4.5. Budget

The proposed budget for this study is $40,000 assuming the evaluation of 3 construction types.


The proposed effort and final report will be completed within one year. Prior to the kick-off meeting a survey will be delivered to all ERC participants. At the kick-off meeting, the three selected construction types will be presented. At the mid-year meeting, a summary of data received will be presented in order to allow further contribution/input from ERC members prior to further defining the BEAST BDL curves. The final deliverable for this study will be the report with the BDL curves. This study does not include incorporating the developed BDL curves into BEAST computer program.


28

Study 5. FULL-SCALE BRM LATERAL RESPONSE TESTS


Blast resistant modules (BRMs) are sometimes used at refineries and chemical processing facilities for occupancy by plant personnel. Structural response of BRM components is generally well understood and can be modeled with reasonable accuracy using single degree of freedom (SDOF) or finite element analysis (FEA) methods. However, for cases where BRMs are set on the ground without anchorage, the lateral response of the building can be significant. Several BRM manufacturers have performed full scale blast testing of their products with high explosives (HE) sources, which typically show very little lateral motion of unanchored BRMs. However, HE blast loads typically involve load durations significantly shorter than those of concern for accidental explosions at refineries or chemical processing facilities. A 2006 ERC study7 involved development of a spreadsheet tool to predict the coupled sliding and tipping response of an unanchored module. This model was validated using small-scale shock tube tests in a 2008 ERC study.8 A 2016 ERC study9 involved full-scale testing of various types of modular buildings (i.e., cool-down trailer, ISO shipping container, and a modular metal office building) using the deflagration load generator (DLG). Results of those tests showed the ISO shipping container can slide up to 15 feet for blast loads generated by the DLG rig. However, since BRMs are typically much heavier than the modular buildings tested for the 2016 ERC, it is desired to conduct full-scale tests of an unanchored BRM to validate its lateral response. Finally, a 2017 ERC study10 involved updating the spreadsheet developed in 2006 to enhance its accuracy.

7 Bennett, R. and Edel, M., “2006 ERC Study 3: Rigid Body-Produced Injury Prediction Spreadsheet for Blast

Resistant Modular Buildings,” prepared for the 2006 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-130-06, June 2007.

8 Edel, M., et al., “2008 ERC Study 1: Portable Building Lateral Response Validation,” prepared for the 2008 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-310-08, Feb. 2009.

9 Horn, Brad et al., “2016 ERC Study 5: ISO-Container, Cooling Trailer, & Modular Office Full Scale Tests,” prepared for the 2016 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-054-16, February 2017.

10 Edel, M., “2017 ERC Study 10: Portable Building Lateral Response Spreadsheet Updates,” prepared for the 2017 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-109-17, in progress.


29

5.2. Approach

BakerRisk will design and fabricate a 10’ × 20’ × 9’ tall steel BRM for vapor cloud explosion (VCE) testing with the DLG rig. The specimen will be representative of a typical steel BRM designed for a blast load of 8 psi free-field pressure for a duration of 200 msec with a structural response criteria of Medium or High Response. It will have a single door on the wall facing away from the blast source, and it will not have any windows. The specimen will be subjected to up to three successive VCE blast loads. The first blast load will be selected so that minor to moderate structural damage may occur (e.g., in the range of 2 to 3 psi free-field pressure at 40 to 50 msec duration). Blast loads for subsequent tests will be at higher pressures and will be determined after completion of the initial test based on the structural response of the test specimen. Response of the BRM will be recorded using HD and HS video. BakerRisk will place some non-structural items inside the BRM for the tests. Some of these non-structural items may include bookcases, desks, chairs, and other similar items representative of an occupied BRM and typical debris hazards. However, architectural finishings (e.g., wall studs, drywall, dropped ceiling tiles, etc.) will not be included. The purpose of including the interior non-structural items is to obtain data for comparison to and improvement of occupant vulnerability models. Both conventional and enhanced connections of the interior non-structural items will be used. BakerRisk will use the spreadsheet tool from the 2017 ERC study to model the lateral response of the BRM for each test. Modifications will be made to the model as appropriate to improve the accuracy of the predicted response.

5.3. Benefits

This study will provide full-scale tests to better validate the 2017 ERC spreadsheet tool used for predicting lateral response of unanchored BRMs. The study will also provide additional test data for interior non-structural debris that could potentially injure building occupants. The BRM used for this test could potentially be used for subsequent jet fire testing in another ERC study.


30

5.4. Project Team

Mr. Matt Edel ([email protected]) will be the project manager, and Mr. Brad Horn ([email protected]) will lead the testing effort of the study.

5.5. Budget



The deliverables include a report summarizing the results of the tests and analysis, as well as pertinent data, photographs, and video from the tests. The schedule involves conducting the tests within 6 months and completing the remainder of the study within one year.




31

Study 6. BEAST PROGRAM UPDATE


The BEAST (Building Evaluation and Screening Tool) computer program is used to estimate the response of buildings to blast loads. The current version of BEAST includes nineteen building construction types to select from (with an additional three sub-building categories for the pre-engineered metal building construction type) when performing building screening level studies. The ERC has funded multiple recent studies focused on the development of building damage level (BDL) curves for new building types:

• 2014 Program11 - Analytical development of BDL curves for three construction types:

o Insulated metal panel modular building o Monolithic concrete o Masonry cavity wall with beam and block roof

• 2015 Program12 - Analytical development, with the combination of shock tube testing, of BDL curves for two construction types:

o Interlocking metal panel modular building o Insulated metal panel modular building

• 2017 Program13 - Analytical development of BDL curves for three construction types:

o Confined masonry o Permanent steel framed structure with insulated metal panel

exterior walls o Fiberglass modular building

This proposed study involves incorporating these BDL curves into the BEAST computer program.

11 Holland, Travis, “Study 2: Development of Building Damage Curves for Non-U.S. Buildings,” prepared for

the 2014 ERC, February 2015. 12 Idriss, Jay and Montoya, John, “Study 2 – Additional BEAST Modular Buildings,” prepared for the 2015

ERC, February 2016. 13 Holland, Travis, “Study 6: Development of Building Damage Curves for Non-U.S. Buildings,” prepared for

the 2017 ERC, February 2018.


32

6.2. Approach

The BDL curves developed in previous program years will be incorporated into the BEAST computer code using the same format as the existing BEAST BDL curves. The primary deliverable of the 201411 and 201713 studies was the building damage level curve. While component damage level curves were utilized to develop the building damage level curves, these component level curves will not be added to the BEAST software in the study.

6.3. Benefits

Incorporating the BDL curves developed in previous ERC programs into the BEAST program will provide better data for users of the BEAST program with more construction type options when performing building siting studies.

6.4. Project Team

The project manager will be Travis Holland, a Senior Engineer in the Protective Structures Section. He will be assisted by Anay Raibagkar. Please contact Mr. Holland ([email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this study.

6.5. Budget



A copy of the updated BEAST program will be provided to each participant of the ERC on an installation CD. Brief guidelines regarding use of the program will be provided within a help menu to reflect the new enhancements to the program. The project will be completed within one year.


33

Study 7. BURSTING VESSEL HAZARDS


Models exist for determining the effects of a bursting pressure vessel located external to surrounding buildings (i.e., in the mid- to far-field). However, explosion effects for bursting pressure vessels located inside buildings are much more difficult to quantify. This study will develop guidance for assessing hazards associated with potential pressure vessel burst scenarios for pressurized vessels that are housed inside buildings with personnel and/or critical equipment nearby.

7.2. Approach

This study will begin with a literature review of references that include methods for estimating hazards associated with stored pressure (i.e., pressure vessels). Methods for calculating hazards such as fragments and blast loads will be summarized. Methods for estimating possible structural damage to buildings from these hazards will also be summarized. In addition, methods for estimating potential injuries to personnel from these hazards will be estimated, which may include use of probit equations for implementation into QRAs.

7.3. Benefits

This study will provide comprehensive guidelines for estimating hazards from potential pressure vessel burst scenarios that occur inside buildings. These methods may be implemented into facility siting studies and QRAs.

7.4. Project Team

The project manager from BakerRisk will be Darren Malik ([email protected]), who will be assisted by Matt Edel and Anibal Morones.

7.5. Budget



The deliverables include a report that summarizes the various methods and guidelines for evaluating pressure vessel hazards inside buildings. The project will be completed within one year.



34

Study 8. GLASS OV MODEL

8.1. Background and Summary

Past ERC studies in 2008, 2010, and 2012 have involved the development of a model for the blast response of glass panes. This structural response model has been added as a SDOF component within the ISADS Pro program that can be used for efficient and accurate assessments of the blast response of glass. The resulting hazard level assigned in the model is determined using a rudimentary approach based solely on the maximum distance a glass shard is thrown into the room in two-dimensional space, which is consistent with the current state of practice in the blast resistant glazing community. This approach provides qualitative results of the potential hazard (i.e., Low, Medium, or High Hazard), which are ill-suited for use with quantitative risk analyses (QRAs) that are commonly conducted at chemical processing facilities. Therefore, QRAs do not typically include occupant vulnerability (OV) due to glass breakage; or at best, they address OV in an overly-simplified manner. Some recent programs sponsored by the U.S. government have allowed for development of a more sophisticated OV model for glass breakage, which could be implemented into a typical QRA study of an industrial facility.

8.2. Approach

This study involves augmenting the current SDOF approach for determining blast response of windows with a method that involves calculating the likelihood of a serious or life-threatening injury to people located behind a window during a blast event. This method will follow the Shard Fly-Out Model and Multi-Hit Glass Penetration codes developed for the U.S. government. These methods are based on shock tube tests conducted by BakerRisk that included glass shard impacts into biofidelic gelatin to simulate human injuries. The approach involves determining various shapes and sizes of glass shards that will be thrown from a broken pane of glass in three-dimensional space, the shard orientation and velocity, and the probability that it will impact a person in an area that could cause a serious or life-threatening injury. Injury probability for laminated and filmed glass breakage will also be provided. The scope of this study does not include development of any software tool. However, an approach for implementation into the ISADS Pro program will be outlined.


35

8.3. Benefits

This study will involve development of a methodology to determine the probability of injury due to glass breakage. Current QRA methods do not explicitly determine contributing risk from injuries due to glass breakage. The model can be applied in a QRA to determine contributing risk of a serious or life-threatening injury to building occupants from glass breakage. Accounting for risk can often greatly reduce the number of windows in need of upgrade or mitigation as compared to upgrading based only on maximum consequence, which can provide significant savings to a facility while still satisfying a company’s risk criteria. This model could also be used to update the enhanced building OV model developed as a 2017 ERC study that accounts for specific locations of people at various locations in a building.

8.4. Project Team

Mr. Matt Edel will lead the project team. Other members of BakerRisk’s Protective Structures Section will assist, as needed. Please contact Mr. Edel ([email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this study.

8.5. Budget



A summary of the methodology developed for this study will be provided in a report. The proposed schedule is one year.


36

Study 9. FIRE IMPINGEMENT ON A BRM


In recent years, industrial facilities with blast hazards have taken great strides to mitigate hazards to personnel in buildings through more robust designs and utilization of portable blast resistant modules (BRM). While this meets the intent of API RP-752, it does not fully address issues associated with jet/pool fire hazards. Fire hazards to BRMs become increasingly more important as BRMs tend to be sited closer to the processes than most conventional buildings. In a 201114 and 2015 15 ERC study, a procedure was established for developing numerical models of buildings subjected to jet fires. These studies were followed up in a 2016 ERC study16 to validate their models against traditional metal paneled modular or pre-engineered buildings. The proposed study is a continuum of the 2016 analysis to evaluate BRM survivability when subject to heat radiation and will provide additional data to complement the 2016 ERC study. Previous jet fire tests performed on shipping containers indicated that different materials of construction provided varying levels of protection to building occupants. A photo of a previously completed jet fire test is provided below in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Previous BRM Jet Fire Test at Wilfred Baker Test Facility

14 Raibagkar, Anay, “Study 2: Thermal Response of Buildings,” prepared for the 2011 Explosion Research

Cooperative, February 2012. 15 Raibagkar, Anay, “Study 7: Screening of Buildings Subjected to Thermal Loads,” prepared for the 2015

Explosion Research Cooperative, February 2017. 3 Campbell, Casey, “Study 15: Jet Fire Test on Wall Systems,” prepared for the 2016 Explosion Research

Cooperative, study in process.


37

BRMs are used to mitigate blast hazards and typically have thicker gauge exterior walls with finished out interior walls. Their effectiveness against fire impingement is not well known. Thus, an understanding of the role of BRM wall types in providing protection to occupants is critical in mitigating thermal radiation hazards.

9.2. Approach

The proposed effort will include testing of specific wall systems subjected to thermal loading. The proposed approach will focus on testing the effectiveness of various wall systems by utilizing a BRM test building measuring 9’ tall with a footprint of 10’ × 20’. Various building faces will be exposed to the flame during testing, and one wall will be coated with an intumescent coating to observe the effects of coated BRM walls. The testing will occur at the BakerRisk Wilfred E. Baker (WEB) Test Facility. A saturated propane jet fire will be applied to the exterior surface of a modular building while heat flux, surface temperatures, and interior air temperatures will be recorded with transducers and thermocouples on the wall face being tested. In addition, cameras placed at the exterior and potentially the interior of the modular building will be utilized to document each test. The proposed effort will include at least four field tests with three different wall system configurations. The wall will be set up first so the jet fire contacts the building along its 20’ side for one test; the second test will be conducted on the opposite long wall. The third test will be conducted on the first short wall. The final test will have the jet fire contacting the other 10’ short wall coated with intumescent coating. The results of the proposed tests will be compared to an analytical model developed using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) to provide further validation of the numerical techniques utilized in the 2011, 2015, and 2016 ERC studies.14,15,16

9.3. Benefits

The benefits of this proposed study are as follows:

• The tests will provide correlations between the temperature rise inside a building and the applied thermal loads for BRM paneled buildings.

• The proposed study will complement the numerical techniques developed as part of the 2011, 2015, and 2016 ERC studies.

• The data can be used to calibrate the numerical models used in thermal analysis calculations.


38

• The test can be used as a foundation for the investigation of the combustion / off-gassing of typical building materials.

• The data from the proposed effort is crucial in developing a roadmap for escape strategies, BRM siting, and mitigation options.

• The numerical techniques combined with the results of this study will give the ERC a roadmap for future analyses and design of retrofits for blast-resistant buildings to resist thermal loads.

9.4. Project Team

Mr. Anay Raibagkar will lead the project team with assistance from other BakerRisk engineers as needed. If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact Mr. Raibagkar ([email protected]).

9.5. Budget

The proposed budget for this study is $100,000. The project will be completed within one year.


The study will be completed within one year. The deliverable will include a report that documents the test data, including test videos and photographs.


39

Study 10. PES SEPARATION TESTING WITH A LARGE CLOUD PHASE II


This study will further investigate the impact of separation distance between two congested volumes on the blast loads produced by vapor cloud explosions (VCEs). The separation distance required between two congested volumes, both encompassed by a flammable vapor cloud, such that an explosion in one volume does not significantly influence the blast loads generated when the flame propagates into the second volume, is generally referred to as the required potential explosion site (PES) separation distance. The 2013 ERC Study 7, VCE Testing of PES Separation Distance,17 was the first dedicated effort by the ERC to investigate the impact of separation distance between two PESs. In a 2015 study,18 the 2013 PES separation distance tests were repeated inside of the large cloud frame in order to reduce the influence of the plastic tent. The proposed study would investigate the PES separation distance correlation developed as part of Study 12 during the 2014 ERC program year19. The proposed study would expand on the 2015 data by doubling the distance to free vent (DFV) of the Donor congested volume compared to the 2015 study while keeping the same Acceptor dimensions. The increase in DFV corresponds to quadrupling the Donor congested volume. The proposed test rig configuration is shown in Figure 4.

10.2. Approach

This study would expand on the data set generated by the 2015 study2 by creating a 4x4x2 Donor congested volume inside the “Large Cloud” rig such that the Donor is 12’ (3.7 m) tall, 24’ (7.3 m) wide and 24’ (7.3m) long. The Acceptor congested volume would remain the same as in the 2015 study (2x8x1). The Donor rig would be placed up against a wall of symmetry as it has been done for previous ERC studies.

17 Malik, D. and Diakow, P., “ERC 2013 Study 7: VCE Testing of PES Separation Distance,” prepared for the

2013 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-860-13, February 2014. 18 Vivanco, E., and Malik, D., “ERC 2015 Study 9: PES Separation Distance Testing with a Large Cloud,”

prepared for the 2015 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-001-15, February 2016.

19 Geng, J., “ERC 2014 Study 12: Correlations for Determination of PES Separation Distance,” prepared for the 2014 Explosion Research Cooperative, BakerRisk Project 01-00760-970-14, February 2016.


40

Figure 4. Proposed Rig Layout

This test rig configuration would quadruple the Donor congested volume and double the distance to free vent relative to the 2015 study. The Donor congested volume would be created by using the traditional 6’ (1.8 m) VCE cubes but with 12’ (3.7 m) tall pipes instead of 6’ (1.8 m) pipes. By doing this, only 8 new VCE cubes need to be fabricated as opposed to 16, which represents a cost savings of $20,000. Separation distances of 30’ (9.1 m) and 15’ (4.6 m) would be investigated as shown in the proposed test matrix shown in Table 3 with three tests total per test series. A baseline test will be performed with the Donor only in a large cloud rig that is 60’ (18.2 m) long. The baseline test would be done to observe the flame deceleration from a larger Donor congested volume and without the influence of the Acceptor. If a deflagration to detonation transition is observed in either test series, the remaining budget will be used to repair the damage to the rig, but further testing within that test series would be suspended as the budget does not provide sufficient scope to repair the test rig more than once. Additionally , the congestion in the Donor would be reduced to prevent a DDT from happening in the remaining test series.


41

Table 4. Proposed Test Matrix

Test Series Donor1

Separation Distance Between Congested

Volumes [ft. (m)]

Acceptor2

A 4 x 4 x 2 N/A N/A

B 4 × 4 x 2 30 (9.1) 2 × 8 x 1

C 4 × 4 x 2 15 (4.6) 2 × 8 x 1 Notes: 1) Donor region is where VCE is initiated, with ignition at the back

wall. The Donor would have a “Medium” level of congestion and a height of 12 feet.

2) Acceptor region is the congested volume the flame propagates into after exiting the donor region and traversing the uncongested region. The Acceptor would have a “Medium” level of congestion.

10.3. Benefits

The primary benefit of this study is testing the 30’ (9.1 m) and 15’ (4.6 m) separation distances with double the DFV in the Donor. The results of this test study will provide information on the effect of separation distance between two congested volumes based on the flame front deceleration (into the uncongested region) and acceleration (into the second congested volume) along with the resulting blast loads in a large fuel-air cloud.

10.4. Project Team

The project manager from BakerRisk will be Emiliano Vivanco, who will be supported in the testing effort by Brad Horn, Darren Malik and Peter Diakow. Dr. Kelly Thomas will provide guidance on development of the test matrix and interpretation of the test data. Please contact Mr. Vivanco ([email protected]) with any questions regarding this study.

10.5. Budget



The deliverable for this work will be a report providing a description of the test setup and the results obtained including pressure-time histories, blast loads, and flame front velocities. The report will also provide applicable recommendations or guidance based on the test results. The proposed effort will be completed within 12 months, and the final report will be delivered at the end of the program year.



42

Study 11. BENT POLE DETONATION INDICATOR EVALUATION


The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently published a report that identified “slender columnar objects” (e.g., scaffold poles, fence posts, lamp posts, etc.) as an indicator of whether a vapor cloud explosion (VCE) was a deflagration or a detonation.20 Specifically, the HSE concluded that a slender columnar object deformed such that it has “continuous curvature” rather than a “hinge” was indicative of a detonation. A slender columnar object (i.e., pole) will respond to both blast and drag phase loading. BakerRisk recently developed non-dimensional drag load (i.e., peak drag and drag impulse) curves for a hemispherical cloud based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis performed using BakerRisk’s BWTI code;21 these drag load curves are similar in nature to the standard Baker-Strehlow-Tang (BST) blast overpressure and impulse curves.22 Similar drag and blast load curves will be developed as part of this study using the same approach for disc-shaped clouds (i.e., “pancake shaped”) for selected aspect ratios. An ongoing 2018 ERC project is developing blast curves for such clouds, although the focus of the current study is not the near-field blast loading.23

11.2. Approach

The proposed study would first develop blast and drag load curves for disc-shaped clouds with selected aspect ratios. The existing hemispherical drag load curves would be refined as needed. The blast and drag load curves for both hemispherical and disc-shaped clouds would then be used to perform finite element analysis (FEA) for representative pole geometries to determine if the response of such structures can be effectively utilized as a VCE detonation indicator.

20 Atkinson, G., J. Hall and A. McGillivray (2017) Review of Vapor Cloud Explosion Incidents, HSE

Research Report RR1113. 21 Geng, J., W.B. Lowry and J.K. Thomas (2018) “Drag Loads from Vapor Cloud Explosions,” PVP2018-84307, ASME 2018 Pressure Vessels and Piping

Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, July 15-20, 2018.

22 Baker, Q.A. et al. (2010) Guidelines for Vapor Cloud Explosion, Pressure Vessel Burst, BLEVE and Flash Fire Hazards, Second Edition, Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) & John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY

23 ERC 2018 Study 10, Adjustment Factors for Non-Ideal VCEs.


43

11.3. Benefits

The benefit of the proposed study would be to determine if the response of poles can be utilized as an effective VCE detonation indicator, as was indicated by the recent HSE report.

11.4. Project Team

The project manager from BakerRisk will be Dr. Kelly Thomas. Dr. Jihui Geng and Will Lowry would perform the CFD analyses to develop the required drag phase loading. Matt Edel would lead the structural analysis, with Dr. Barry Bingham performing the FEA analyses. Please contact Dr. Thomas ([email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this study.

11.5. Budget



The deliverable would be a report which documents the drag phase load curves, structural analysis methodology, and results of the study. The study will be completed within one year, and the final report issued at the end of the program year.


44

Study 12. VCE CASE STUDY


Case studies are the final verification of the accuracy of blast prediction and structural models, and provide data from an incident that can be used by participants to share lessons learned with their companies. Incident data acquired from an incident is studied in detail, compared to the most current prediction techniques, and reported back to the ERC Participants. A vapor cloud explosion accident has been selected for a case study in the 2019 program. This explosion occurred in a refinery following failure of a pipe and dispersion of vapors into the process area. This case is of interest since the resulting vapor cloud explosion was relatively small. The pipe failure occurred on a processing column above most of the surrounding congestion, and much of the flammable cloud consumed by fire above congestion.

12.2. Approach

A significant amount of data was gathered by BakerRisk engineers during the incident investigation, providing documentation of the location and orientation of the release source, composition of the released material, confinement and congestion in the process unit, location of the flammable cloud, potential ignition locations, and explosion damage. Besides testing blast load and structural damage model predictions, the case study will investigate the ability of vapor dispersion models to properly predict dispersion from an elevated release that was above the elevation of most of the congestion.

12.3. Benefits

Case studies add credibility to existing blast prediction methods by providing validation data. Critical examination of the predictions vs. the actual damage provides invaluable information for improving the models. Also, case studies complement research studies by examining the consequences of a large scale, real-world event that cannot be duplicated on a research scale. Participants also benefit from the lessons learned concerning the accident sequence and actual consequence of the incident.


45

12.4. Project Team

The project manager for the case study will be Mr. Quentin Baker. Mr. Baker supported investigation of the subject incident. Mr. Baker will be assisted by Don Ketchum, Jasen Falcon and Travis Holland, all of whom participated in the original investigation. Please contact Mr. Baker ([email protected]) if you have any questions concerning this study.

12.5. Budget



Kickoff, mid-year and year-end presentations will be prepared and delivered at each of the respective meetings. The presentations will be the primary means of delivering scene photos. A report will be prepared that provides details the sequence of events, details of the fuel release and dispersion, specifics of the explosion, and comparisons of predicted dispersion, blast loads and structural damage to observed data. Where applicable, recommendations will be made for improvement of dispersion, blast predictions, structural analysis approach, and forensic analysis of an accident. The study will be completed in 12 months.


46

Study 13. FLAMMABLE CLOUD DETONATION FRACTION EVALUATION


The fraction of a flammable cloud which participates in a detonation must be specified for the purposes of predicting vapor cloud explosion (VCE) blast loads in the case where a deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) is predicted. It is commonly assumed that the entire flammable cloud participates in the detonation if a DDT is predicted. However, this is obviously a conservative assumption and may lead to a significant over-prediction of corresponding VCE blast load. A detonation wave will fail (i.e., the shock and combustion fronts will decouple, yielding a decaying shock wave and a deflagration) if the detonation enters a portion of the flammable cloud which is “too thin” or has a concentration gradient which is “too steep”. The flammable mixture detonation cell size (λ) may be used to quantify these criteria, and some literature data is available for this purpose. A flammable cloud which is “too thin” in this case would correspond to an insufficient number of detonation cells across the flammable cloud’s smallest dimension (i.e., Xc < Nλ). The flammable cloud concentration gradient criterion can be expressed in terms of the detonation cell size gradient criteria (i.e., dλ/dx > gc). The quantification of these criteria and their application to representative flammable clouds is the focus of this study. It should also be noted that some degree of flame propagation is required to allow a DDT to occur, and the portion of the flammable cloud consumed prior to the DDT would not participate in the detonation. In addition, in cases where a flammable cloud ignited in the open, the flame must first propagate into a congested area in order to accelerate and allow a DDT.

13.2. Approach

The proposed study would first quantify detonation propagation criteria based on a minimum flammable cloud dimension and concentration gradient. Literature data would be used for this purpose, with the criteria expressed in terms of detonation cell size. These criteria would be evaluated for fuel-air mixtures (i.e., vs. fuel-oxygen mixtures). These criteria would then be applied to a free turbulent jet described using a simplified analytical cloud concentration representation as a benchmark case. The same dispersion analysis would then be performed using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses, using the FLACS and/or FDS code. CFD analyses would then be performed for a vertical downward release, and for horizontal releases into representative congested


47

volumes. For releases into representative congested volumes, the release rate would be chosen such that the flammable cloud extends beyond the congested volume. These analyses would provide a quantification of the fraction of the flammable cloud that could participate in a detonation for each release scenario evaluated. It should be noted that this study will not cover all release scenarios of interest (e.g., disc-shaped clouds), and that additional work may be required to extend the results to cover a broader range. It also should be noted that this analysis would not explicitly consider the portion of the flammable cloud consumed prior to a DDT.

13.3. Benefits

The benefit of the proposed study would be to quantify the fraction of the flammable cloud volume that could participate in a detonation for each release scenario evaluated. The set of values developed in this manner would provide a basis for specifying the flammable cloud volume fraction that could participate in a detonation for the cases evaluated. This would allow a reduction in the conservatism associated with VCE blast loads in those cases where a DDT is predicted.

13.4. Project Team

The project manager from BakerRisk will be Dr. Kelly Thomas. Dr. Jihui Geng and Oscar Rodriquez would perform the CFD dispersion analyses. Please contact Dr. Thomas ([email protected]) if you have any questions regarding this study.

13.5. Budget



The deliverable would be a report which documents the detonation propagation criteria values, dispersion analysis, and results of the study. The study will be completed within one year, and the final report issued at the end of the program year.

erc 2019 program prospectuserc.bakerrisk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/erc-2019... ·...

Documents