Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene
Abstract
Several techniques are available for predicting the strength of the blast wave produced by an unconfined vapor cloud explosion
(UVCE), as a function of distance from the vapor cloud. In this manuscript, three of the most widely used UVCE prediction
models (TNT, TNO and BST models) have been used to study the consequences of an explosion of hydrogen that occur in a lab
where investigation on fuel cells is carried out. Moreover, the vulnerability of persons, expressed as the number of individuals
who can possibly be affected by eardrum rupture or death from lung hemorrhage have been estimated using the Probit units.
The TNT model predicts higher values of overpressure than the other two models at the same distances.
Some structural damages can be expected at distances up to 50 m, the four closer labs to the lab where the explosion occurs
suffer destruction.
In the case of people, important injuries or casualties can be expected to the people in the CICAT but not to the people in the
library or in the lecture room building. This paper shows an easy tool to give the first step in the study of hazards of explosion
of hydrogen.
䉷 2006 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Consequence analysis; UVCE; TNO model; TNT model; Baker–Strehlow–Tang model; Probit units
Nomenclature
A orifice area, m2 R combustion energy scaled dis-
E the total available energy, J tance, dimensionless
Fo discharge coefficient of the orifice, Rd distance from the explosion in
dimensionless TNT model, m. Distance from the
k ratio of specific heats, dimension- center of the hemisphere, TNO and
less BST models, m
k1 and k2 empirical constants in vulnerabil- rcrit critical ration, dimensionless
ity analysis, dimensionless T1 temperature of the gas in the de-
M the molecular weight of the gas, posit side, K
kg/mol V intensity of the damage causative
Mf flame velocity, BST model, dimen- factor. In the case of explosions,
sionless the variable V is the overpressure,
m mass flow of gas, kg/s N/m2
P probability, % WTNT equivalent mass of TNT, kg
P0 overpressure, TNT model, N/m2 Wgas mass of gas in the cloud, kg
P0 ambient atmospheric pressure, Y probit units, dimensionless
TNO and BST models, J/m3 z normalized or scaled distance,
P1 initial pressure in the recipient, TNT model, m/kg1/3
N/m2
Greek letters
P2 final pressure, generally atmo-
spheric pressure, N/m2 Hc(gas) lower heat of combustion of the
Ps peak side-on overpressure, TNO material, kJ/kg
and BST models, N/m2 Hc(TNT) heat of combustion of TNT, ap-
Ps dimensionless overpressure, TNO proximately 4680 kJ/kg
and BST models, dimensionless explosion yield, dimensionless
R the universal gas law constant, 1 is the gas density in the recipient,
J/mol K kg/m3
be less dangerous in terms of thermal and fire hazards, majority were leaks that resulted in combustible cloud
but it may be responsible for stronger pressure effects formation with the consequent risk of explosion [3].
under certain conditions [2]. A comparison of the spe- Consequence analysis is used to estimate the magnitude
cific and overall risks will be useful in highlighting the of health effects, facility/equipment damage, economic
advantages of hydrogen fuel and in identifying those losses, or environmental impacts associated with acci-
areas where additional accident management measures dents involving hazardous materials (toxic, flammable,
or regulations should be recommended. Hydrogen mit- explosive, radioactive, etc.). Specific components of
igation techniques and safety devices for detecting, di- consequence analysis are estimating release rates to the
lution and removal of hydrogen still possess significant environment, fire or explosion analysis, and estimat-
innovation potential with regard to reliability, efficiency ing the effects that a release might have on buildings,
and adaptation to specific applications. employees, or the public.
From the point of view of risk assessment, the evalu- This work shows easy methods to estimate the effects
ation of the consequences of fires and explosions, which of an unconfined hydrogen cloud explosion, as a func-
this paper is about, requires a definition of the scenario tion of the distance, after the accidental discharge of
in which the fire or explosion would take place. It is re- a hydrogen container at 200 bar. Furthermore, the vul-
quired to know, for example, how much material within nerability of person, expressed as the number of indi-
the flammability limits exists in a cloud at the moment viduals who can possibly be affected by a certain level
of explosion, or how much flammable liquid exists in of injury because of an accident, and the vulnerabil-
the leak that has caught fire. So, in the DOE Hydro- ity of installations have been estimated using the Probit
gen Program, of the 68 release scenarios identified, the methodology.
1782 J. Lobato et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1780 – 1790
Table 1
Some properties of fuels
100000
10000
Overpressure (KPa)
1000
100
10
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Normalised distance (m1/3)
where WTNT is the equivalent mass of TNT (kg) that 2.2. TNO multi-energy model
would produce the same effects as the explosion, rep-
resents the explosion yield (dimensionless); it is gener- This model is increasingly accepted as a more rea-
ally accepted that, taking as a basis for calculation the sonable alternative to be used as a simple and prac-
total quantity of vapor in the cloud, the value of is tical method [12]. It is based on the premise that a
between 1% and 10% for most explosions. Wgas is the vapor cloud explosion can occur only within that por-
total mass of flammable gas in the cloud, Hc(gas) is the tion of a flammable vapor that is partially confined.
lower heat of combustion of the material (kJ/kg), and Thus, the amount of energy released during a VCE is
Hc(TNT) is the heat of combustion of TNT (approxi- limited either by the volume of the partially confined
mately 4680 kJ/kg). portion of the flammable vapor cloud (if the flammable
In spite of the limitations due to its simplified nature, vapor cloud is larger than the partially confined region)
the TNT model is still widely used for the prediction or by the volume of the vapor cloud (if the vapor cloud
of overpressures at a given distance from the center of is smaller than the volume of the portion of the par-
an explosion. This model is based on an empirical law, tially confined space). In either case, the volume of the
established from trials done using explosives. This law cloud within the partially confined space can be con-
establishes equivalent effects for explosions occurring verted into a hemisphere of equal volume. The model
at the same normalized distance, expressed as treats the hemispherical cloud as a homogeneous, sto-
ichiometric mixture of flammable gas and air, with a
Rd
z= , (5) combustion energy of 3.1 × 106 J/m3 (the average heat
(WTNT )1/3 of combustion of a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen
and air). TNO has used a flux-corrected transport code
where z is the normalized or scaled distance (m/kg1/3 ),
to numerically simulate the explosion of a hemispheri-
Rd is the real distance (m), and WTNT is the equivalent
cal, homogeneous, stoichiometric cloud, with constant
mass of TNT (kg), calculated by Eq. (4).
flame speed. TNO presents the results of this modeling
For any given scaled distance, there is a correspond-
as family of curves in Fig. 2 [12,13]. In this figure, ten
ing value of overpressure, which is obtained from an
curves that span the range of severities from mild de-
empirical chart (see Fig. 1) of scaled distance ver-
flagrations to detonations have been shown. Each curve
sus overpressure. This graph is based on the results
is assigned an integer that indicates the severity. Thus,
of numerous experimental programs involving high
1 means mild deflagration and 10 means detonation.
explosives [9–11].
1784 J. Lobato et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1780 – 1790
Table 2
Flame Speed in Mach numbers (Mf ) for ignition sources used in
the Baker–Strehlow–Tang model
Table 3
Probit units and percentages
Table 4
Damage caused by explosions as a function of overpressure
the area blockage ratio is below 10%, medium if it is in with the procedures describe above, using the previous
the range of 10%–40%, and high if the blockage ratio equations. A possible method of estimating vulnerabil-
is higher than 40%. Finally, the confinement or flame ity consists of directly relating the dose received with
expansion must be taken into account. No confining the effect considered. The methods that related causes
plane to flame expansion is considered 3D. A single directly with effects are hardly used, and the approx-
plane is 2D. A pipe, culvert or area with a roof and imations to the problem of estimation of vulnerability
two vertical walls would be 1D. The update in 1996 generally follow a probabilistic approach. In this work,
also defined 2.5D confinement as an area with limited the Probit (probability unit) method is shown.
2D confinement, such as a roof and/or partial walls that The Probit scale is a way of dealing with probabilities.
might be expected to fail quickly and provide venting, The connection between Probit units Y, and probability
or an area without total 2D confinement such as an P is given by the following equation [16]:
elevated fin fan cooler.
−5
1
P=√ exp(−u2 /2) du. (8)
2.4. Vulnerability study 2 −
The next step consists of the estimation of the vulner- This equation establishes a relationship between
ability of persons and installations to the physical effects probability and Probit units. The result is the Probit
of a determined magnitude, which can be calculated distribution, with mean 5 and variance 1. The values
1786 J. Lobato et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1780 – 1790
Fig. 4. Scheme of the scenario. (a) Situation of the CICAT and the surrounding area and (b) Map of the labs of the ground floor of the CICAT
where the explosion occurs.
relating percentages and Probit units are shown in where K1 y K2 are empirical constants, and V mea-
Table 3, adapted from data given in [17]. sures the intensity of the damage-causative factor. In
The Probit method uses the easier following equation the case of explosions, the variable V is the overpres-
in vulnerability analysis: sure P 0 , for the TNT model and Ps in the case of the
TNO and Baker–Strehlow–Tang models. Table 4 shows
Y = K1 + K2 ln(V ), (9) levels of damage that can be expected for different
J. Lobato et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1780 – 1790 1787
values of overpressure, data selected from [5]. The Pro- a map of the situation of the CICAT and the labs where
bit equations to use in evaluating the direct effects of the explosion occurs. The dimension of the lab where
an explosion, if the TNT model has been used, are as the explosion occurs is 11 × 8 × 3 m3 .
follows [17] for death from lung hemorrhage:
Y = −77.1 + 6.91 ln(P 0 ). (10)
4. Results and discussion
Similarly, for eardrum rupture, the corresponding equa-
tion is 4.1. Variation with time of the H2 flow discharged
Y = −15.6 + 1.93 ln(P ). 0
(11)
First of all and taking into account the values of data,
In the case that the other two models have been used, the first thing that must be done is to know whether
the only thing that must be done is to change the value the flow discharge is subsonic or sonic. Thus, using the
of P 0 by Ps , N/m2 . Eq. (1), it will be checked that rcrit = 0.528 and then,
In addition to the above, effects are the injuries caused the flow is sonic. Fig. 5 shows the variation of mass of
by high velocity fragments generated in an explosion, H2 and flow discharged with the time. It can be seen
those due to impact by displacement or projection of that after 2 h the amount of H2 that has been discharged
the body and those that are related to other effects of the to the atmosphere, is 1.078 kg of H2 . Therefore, the
explosion, such as the collapse of buildings, generation volume of leaked hydrogen is 13.18 m3 . Taking into
of fires and release of toxic gases. The estimation of account the volume of the room is 264 m3 , the hydro-
those effects is out of the purpose of this paper. gen volume percentage inside the room corresponds to
2
3. Scenario 1.8
leaked hydrogen, Kg
1.6
In this manuscript, the authors show an easy way to 1.4
estimate the vulnerability of persons and installations 1.2
of a UVCE of hydrogen. In order to know how all the 1
0.8
equations and the charts shown in this manuscript work,
0.6
an example, is proposed that could happen in any lab
0.4
of any University or Research Centre. 0.2
In our laboratory, there is an experimental setup to 0
investigate on fuel cells that works with hydrogen. The 0 1 2 3 4
source is two cylinders of 60 dm3 of volume, 200 bar time, hours
and 8.8 m3 (at 15 ◦ C and 200 bar) of H2 (k = 1.4), but,
Fig. 5. Variation of mass of hydrogen discharged with the time.
only one is always operative, so that when the pressure
of the first cylinder drops down to 5 bars, automati-
cally, and in order to avoid any damage of the main
equipments, there is a change in the supplying cylinder. 1000
Therefore, after that, the second cylinder provides the
3,500 Kg displaced and highly damaged
hydrogen to the network. The supplied pressure is 5 bar.
Overpressure (KPa)
provided to the network. Let us suppose there is a small 10 Partial demolition of houses
hole (1 mm diameter and Fo = 0.61) in one of the pipes Minor structural damages to houses
60 20
80 40
100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
(a) Rd (m)
33
67
100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
(b) Rd (m)
Fig. 7. Vulnerability of persons. Death from lung hemorrhage. (a) TNT model and (b) TNO model.
20
40
60
80
100
1E2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(a) Rd (m)
100
1E2
60 20
80 40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(b) Rd (m)
20
80 40
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(c) Rd (m)
Fig. 8. Vulnerability of persons. Eardrum rupture. (a) TNT model, (b) TNO model and (c) BST model.
J. Lobato et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1780 – 1790 1789
a value of 5%, which is within the ignition limits of the and no projectiles collide with the vessel, this would
fuel, as it can be seen in Table 1. Furthermore, it can not explode, most likely.
be observed that in 3.6 h, all the hydrogen of both the In short, with the explosion of hydrogen studied, im-
cylinders would have leaked inside the lab. portant damages in the building can be expected at low
distances (20 m, approximately), so the lab where the
4.2. Variation of the overpressure with the distance explosion occurs would be destroyed and the closest
would suffer important structural damages.
Once it is known the amount of hydrogen in the cloud
that explodes (1.078 kg), with the Eq. (4) and taking a 4.3. Calculation of the vulnerability of persons with
value of explosion yield equal to 10%, the equivalent the distance
mass of TNT, WTNT (kg) was calculated; after this, the
following step is to calculate the normalized distance With the value of the overpressures estimated previ-
z, at different distance Rd , using the Eq. (5) by TNT ously and the Eqs. (10) and (11), the Probit units for the
model. With Fig. 1, it can be possible to estimate the death from lung hemorrhage and for eardrum rupture,
overpressure P 0 . respectively can be calculated. With Table 3, the varia-
Also, the TNO method was applied to calculate the tion of the percentages of those effects with the distance
overpressure at different distances, so the Eqs. (6) and can be estimated and charts can be prepared as shown
(7) have been used and the curve 10 has been selected in Figs. 7 and 8 for the three models selected.
for the case of the mixture of hydrogen–air due to its In Fig. 7, the corresponding diagram for BST model
high grade of detonation. has not been shown since this model does not predict
For the case of the BST model, it has been assumed any death from lung hemorrhage, whereas with the TNT
that the flame expansion is 2D and the density obstacle model there is a high probability of death (> 60%) at
is lower than 10%, so it is low; so, the Mf that must be 3.5 m of distance and with the TNO model as far as 2 m.
used in the BST model is 0.59. It can be said that the first 5 m are the most dangerous
Fig. 6 shows the variation of the overpressure P 0 , because there is some probability of death. In the case of
with the distance Rd , up to 100 m for the three mod- eardrum rupture, Fig. 8, it can be appreciated differences
els studied, and different damages selected from the between the three models studied. From the safety point
Table 4 have been shown. It can be observed that there of view, it is recommended to be at distance higher
are differences at low distances between these models. than 13 m.
Thus, high damages can be expected till 6 m with the Taking into account our scenario, the persons more
TNT model, 2 m with the TNO model and with the BST affected by the explosion would be those who were in
model that damages are not expected. Nevertheless, a the closer labs to the one where the explosion occurred.
good agreement was achieved between the TNO and People who were working in the pilot plants or in the
BST model, at distances higher than 4 m. It can be ob- demonstration labs did not suffer eardrum rupture or
served that the TNT model is the most restrictive from death from lung hemorrhage but this does not mean
the safety point of view. So, it may be expected that up that they do not have any risk. It must be recalled that
to 19 m, partial demolition of houses can occur, down those zones would suffer partial demolition. So some
to 60 m minor structural damages to houses, and down injuries can be caused by high velocity fragments, by
to 100 m glass breakages. displacement or projection of the body. No damages
Taking into account our scenario, it can be observed will be suffered by the students who were in the lecture
that the library and the lecture room building would not room building or in the library.
suffer any important damages. Glass breakages could
be expected in the Faculty of Chemistry, which is situ-
ated at 45 m approximately. From all the labs that are 5. Conclusions
in the CICAT, the most important to be taken into ac-
count, from a safety point of view, is the Catalysis lab The consequence analysis of an unconfined vapor
because there are many flammable gas and even hydro- cloud explosion of hydrogen has been easily determined
gen cylinders, so potential domino effects [18] could by using three of the most widely used, simplified VCE
occur and increase the damages. Another point of inter- models (TNT, TNO, and BST models). A fictional
est is the vessel of propane situated close to the Faculty case study in an actual scenario has been chosen to
(40 m, approximately). Would it explode? If no domino study the effect of a VCE of hydrogen on building and
effects, which could increase the effect of the explosion persons.
1790 J. Lobato et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 1780 – 1790
The TNT model predicts higher overpressures at the [3] Keller J, Moen C, Schefer R, Houf B, Somerday B, San
same distance than the other two models. The main Marchi C. Hydrogen safety, codes and standards research and
differences between the TNO and BST models occur development. FY 2004 progress report.
[4] American Institute for Chemical Engineers. Guidelines for
at very low distances (< 2 m approximately); at higher evaluating the characteristics of vapor clouds explosions, flash
distances, both the models predict similar overpressures. fires, and BLEVEs. New York, 1994.
The three models predict that the labs and pilot plants [5] Santamaría JM, Braña PA. Risk analysis and reduction in
located in the CICAT will have important structural the chemical process industry. London: Blackie Academic &
damages, overall, the four labs closest to the explosion. Professional; 1998.
[6] Rigas F, Sklavounos S. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 2002;15:531–44.
The Faculty would suffer glass breakages and some mi- [7] Rigas F, Sklavounos S. Trans IchemE Pt B Proc Safety Environ
nor structural damages. So some domino effects must Prot 2004;82(B4):1–11.
be taken into account because these could increase the [8] http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms2001091/ms2001091.html [accessed
damages and other zones could be affected. the 10th February 2006].
It can be concluded that people who were in the [9] Bodhurtha FP. Industrial explosion prevention and protection.
New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
lecture room building and in the library would be in a [10] Lees FP. Loss prevention in the process industries. London:
safe place, but people in the CICAT and Faculty have a Butterworth-Heinemann; 1980.
high risk. [11] CCPS (Center for Chemical Process Safety) Guidelines
This work also underlines the importance of perform- for chemical process quantitative risk analysis. New York:
ing safety studies for the hydrogen applications to be American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 1989.
[12] Mercx WP, Van der Berg AC, Hayhurst CJ, Robertson CJ,
able to know the consequences of accidental hydrogen Moran KC. Developments in vapour cloud explosion blast
releases due to the important role that hydrogen is play- modeling. J Hazard Mater 2000;71:301–19.
ing in the future. [13] Van der Berg AC. The multi-energy method: a framework
for vapour cloud explosion blast prediction. J Hazard Mater
1985;12:1–10.
Acknowledgment [14] Pierorazio AJ, Thomas JK, Baker QA, Ketchum DE. An
update to the Baker–Strehlow–Tang vapor cloud explosion
prediction methodology flame speed table. Process Safety Prog
The authors wish to thank Mr. Van der Berg for the 2005;24(1):59–65.
many fruitful comments and the permission for the use [15] Baker QA, Tang MJ, Scheier EA, Silva GJ. Vapor cloud
of the Fig. 2 for the TNO model. They also acknowledge explosion analysis. Process Safety Prog 1989;15(2):106–9.
the contributions of Mr. Fitzgerald for the BST model. [16] Finney DJ. Probit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 1974.
[17] http://www.mtas.es/insht/ntp/ntp_291.htm [accessed the 10th
References February 2006].
[18] Delvosalle Ch, Fievez C, Brohez S. A methodology and a
[1] Venetsanos AG, Huld T, Adams P, Bartzis JG. Source, dispersion software (DOMINOXL) for studying domino effects, Chisa
and combustion modeling of an accidental release of hydrogen 2002. In: 15th international congress of chemical and process
in an urban environment. J Hazard Mater A 2003;105:1–25. engineering, 25–29 August 2002. Praha, Czech Republic.
[2] Dorofeev S. Safety aspects of hydrogen as energy carrier. In:
Presented at first European hydrogen energy conference, 2003.