Numerical analysis of physical barriers to mitigate the gas tank explosion effects using computational fluid dynamics

Moura, Tiago Rodrigues Coelho de; Costa Neto, Murilo Limeira da; Doz, Graciela Nora

doi:10.1590/S1983-41952024000300001

Tiago Rodrigues Coelho de Moura

conceptualization

methodology

formal analysis

software

original draft writing

Universidade de Brasília - UnB, Departamento de Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3975-7150

Murilo Limeira da Costa Neto

guidance

supervision

formal review

software

correction

editing

Instituto de Educação Superior de Brasília - IESB, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8146-4883

Graciela Nora Doz

guidance

supervision

formal review

correction

editing

Universidade de Brasília - UnB, Departamento de Engenharia Civil e Ambiental, Brasília, DF, Brasil

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6428-4012

Corresponding author: Tiago Rodrigues Coelho de Moura. E-mail: tiago.trcm@gmail.com

Conflict of interest: Nothing to declare.

Editors: Antonio Carlos dos Santos, Guilherme Aris Parsekian.

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Typical blast wave pressure-time history [²⁴24 J. Trajkovski, R. Kunc, J. Perenda, and I. Prebil, “Minimum mesh design criteria for blast wave development and structural response - MMALE method,” Lat. Am. J. Solids Struct., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 1999-2017, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1679-78252014001100006.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1679-78252014... ].

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Shock wave diffraction over an obstacle [⁹9 M. E. Beyer, “Blast loads behind vertical walls,” in Explosive Safety Seminar, 1986.].

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Analysis environment illustrative scheme.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Overpressures from propane tanks explosion with a volume of 27.2 liters [³¹31 T. R. C. Moura, M. L. Costa No., and G. N. Doz, “Numerical analysis of the explosion of gas tanks using computational fluid dynamics,” Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 16, no. 4, 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952023000400008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952023... ].

Thumbnail

Figure 5
2D analysis environment.

Thumbnail

Figure 6
a) analysis model. b) model discretized in Autodyn.

Thumbnail

Figure 7
Cross section geometry of physical protection barriers.

Thumbnail

Figure 8
Protective wall top edges.

Thumbnail

Figure 9
Discretization in Autodyn. a) ditch V1. b) rough soil.

Thumbnail

Figure 10
Ditches cross section geometry.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Overpressures from propane tanks explosion with a volume of 27.2 liters [³¹31 T. R. C. Moura, M. L. Costa No., and G. N. Doz, “Numerical analysis of the explosion of gas tanks using computational fluid dynamics,” Rev. IBRACON Estrut. Mater., vol. 16, no. 4, 2023, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952023000400008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952023... ].

Thumbnail

Figure 5
2D analysis environment.

Thumbnail

Figure 6
a) analysis model. b) model discretized in Autodyn.

Thumbnail

Figure 7
Cross section geometry of physical protection barriers.

Thumbnail

Figure 8
Protective wall top edges.

Thumbnail

Figure 9
Discretization in Autodyn. a) ditch V1. b) rough soil.

Thumbnail

Figure 10
Ditches cross section geometry.

Thumbnail

Figure 11
Overpressure in sensors 4, 5, and 6.

Thumbnail

Figure 12
Overpressures on the building facade depending on the protective wall length.

Thumbnail

Figure 13
Overpressure on the building facade (gauges 1, 2, and 3) depending on the protective wall position.

Thumbnail

Figure 14
Overpressure on the building facade (gauges 1, 2, and 3) depending on the protective wall geometry.

Thumbnail

Figure 15
Overpressure on the building facade (gauges 1, 2, and 3) depending on the protective wall top edge.

Thumbnail

Figure 16
Overpressure on the protective wall front face (gauges 7, 8 and 9) for each type of ditch.

Thumbnail

Figure 17
Overpressure on the protective wall front face (gauges 7, 8 and 9) for ditch V3 with different depths.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Overpressure prediction equations (ΔP) [²⁵25 M. L. Costa No. and G. Doz, ““Estudo numérico das pressões de onda de choque em diferentes meios e sua transmissão,” Rev. Sul-americana Eng Estrutural, vol. 14, no. 2, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.5335/rsaee.v14i2.7219.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5335/rsaee.v14i2.72... ]

Thumbnail

Table 2
Cylindrical gas tank characteristics.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Propane gas properties [²⁹29 Y. A. Çengel and M. A. Boles, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 8th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2014.].

Thumbnail

Table 4
Protective wall distance from explosion

Thumbnail

Table 5
Physical barriers cross sections detailing

Thumbnail

Table 6
Ditches cross section detailing.

Thumbnail

Table 7
Percentage of overpressure peaks reduction for each type of barrier compared to the model without protective wall.

(1)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

Author	Equation	Requirement	Unit
Brode	$Δ P = \frac{6.7}{Z^{3}} + 1$ (2)	ΔP > 10	Bar
Brode	$Δ P = \frac{0.975}{Z} + \frac{1.455}{Z^{2}} + \frac{5.85}{Z^{3}} - 0,019$ (3)	0.1 < ΔP < 10	Bar
Henrych	$Δ P = \frac{14.072}{Z} + \frac{5.540}{Z^{2}} - \frac{0.357}{Z^{3}} + \frac{0.00625}{Z^{4}}$ (4)	0.05 ≤ Z ≤ 0.3	Bar
	$Δ P = \frac{6.194}{Z} - \frac{0.326}{Z^{2}} + \frac{2.132}{Z^{3}}$ (5)	0.3 ≤ Z ≤ 1	Bar
	$Δ P = \frac{0.662}{Z} + \frac{4.05}{Z^{2}} + \frac{3.288}{Z^{3}}$ (6)	1 ≤ Z ≤ 10	Bar
Mill	$Δ P = \frac{1772}{Z^{3}} - \frac{114}{Z^{2}} + \frac{108}{Z}$ (7)	-	kPa
Kinney	$\frac{Δ P}{P_{0}} = \frac{808 [1 + {(\frac{Z}{4.5})}^{2}]}{\sqrt{1 + {(\frac{Z}{0.048})}^{2}} \sqrt{1 + {(\frac{Z}{0.32})}^{2}} \sqrt{1 + {(\frac{Z}{1.35})}^{2}}}$ (8)	-	-
Newmark	$Δ P = 6784 \frac{W}{R^{3}} + 93 {(\frac{W}{R^{3}})}^{1 / 2}$ (9)	-	Bar

Volume	8.15 m³
Length	2580 mm
Diameter	2200 mm
Design pressure	2 MPa (20 bar)

Reference temperature (T)	15º C (288.2 K)
Specific heat at constant volume (C_v)	1.4909 kJ/kg∙K
Gas constant (R)	0.1885 kJ/kg∙K
Critical point temperature (T_c)	370 K
Critical point pressure (P_c)	4.26 MPa
Co-volume (b) - obtained by the Equation 13	0.00205 m³/kg

Wall position	D [mm]
P1	3600
P2	4850
P3	6100

Model	Surface1	Curvature2	Width [mm]		Material
Model	Surface1	Curvature2	Top	Base	Material
G1	plane	-	200	200	concrete
G2a	plane	-	100	500	concrete
G2b	inclined	-	100	500	concrete
G3a	concave	20°	100	500	concrete
G3b	convex	20°	100	500	concrete
G4a	concave	40°	100	500	concrete
G4b	convex	40°	100	500	concrete
G5a	concave	60°	100	500	concrete
G5b	convex	60°	100	500	concrete
G6a	concave	80°	100	500	concrete
G6b	convex	80°	100	500	concrete
G7a	plane	-	200	500	concrete
G7b	irregular	-	200	500	concrete
G8	rough	-	100	500	concrete
G9	steps	-	500	2000	concrete
G10	inclined	-	500	3000	sand

Ditch	Depth [mm]	Width [mm]		Shape
Ditch	Depth [mm]	higher	bottom	Shape
V1	1000	500	500	rectangular
V2	500	1000	1000	rectangular
V3	400	1250	1250	rectangular
V4	625	1000	600	trapezoidal
V5	625	1000	600	trapezoidal
V6	625	1000	600	trapezoidal
V7	1000	1000	0	triangular
V8	800	1250	0	triangular
V9	800	1250	0	triangular
V10	562.5	1125	0	semicircle

Gauge	G1	G2a	G2b	G3a	G3b	G4a	G4b	G5a
1	71.5%	71.1%	68.7%	71.2%	71.7%	71.1%	71.7%	71.2%
2	67.6%	67.6%	62.6%	68.2%	67.4%	68.8%	66.7%	69.3%
3	72.1%	71.9%	62.7%	72.5%	71.7%	73.0%	71.2%	73.5%
Gauge	G5b	G6a	G6b	G7a	G7b	G8	G9	G10
1	71.5%	71.4%	71.0%	71.9%	69.3%	71.2%	65.3%	61.3%
2	66.5%	69.7%	66.5%	69.9%	65.6%	68.9%	63.6%	59.4%
3	70.8%	73.9%	70.5%	74.4%	67.5%	72.9%	65.5%	63.0%

[1] Corresponding author: Tiago Rodrigues Coelho de Moura. E-mail: tiago.trcm@gmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Numerical analysis of physical barriers to mitigate the gas tank explosion effects using computational fluid dynamics

Análise numérica de barreiras físicas para mitigar os efeitos da explosão de tanques de gás usando fluidodinâmica computacional

Abstract