Scribd
Upload
22 views

Case Study Detection

TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE GAS CLOUD DETECTORS LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION USING CFD

Uploaded by

Deepak
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views

Case Study Detection

TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE GAS CLOUD DETECTORS LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION USING CFD

Uploaded by

Deepak
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE GAS CLOUD

DETECTORS LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION


USING CFD
TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE GAS CLOUD
DETECTORS LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION
USING CFD

Introduction to the case


Gas detectors are commonly installed in process facilities to automatically alarm and trigger safety measures in response to hazard-
ous leaks. Without effective leak detection, installations can be susceptible to two main hazards: (1) accumulation of toxic gases
to levels that exceed given exposure threshold limits, and (2) accumulation of flammable gases to levels that can cause fires or
explosions. The quantity and positioning of hydrocarbon (HC) gas and toxic gas detectors (e.g. for detecting H2S) is a crucial factor
for the effectiveness of the detection process. However, the total number and placement of detectors that can be used is limited
and should be optimized for maximum effectiveness.

What is the set-up of the case?  


The approach presented here is in line with that outlined in the NORSOK S001 standard regarding criteria for detection.
The proposed approach pertains to detection of HC leaks in semi-confined naturally ventilated areas. All dangerous clouds must
be detected; and the gas detection system will be optimized based on clouds resulting from small, more frequently occurring leaks
(typically 0.1 kg/s leaks). Therefore a typical study is divided into “dangerous” cloud detection, which involves the analysis of
larger leak rates, and “typical” cloud detection, which involves the analysis of small more frequently occurring leaks.

Figure 1: Variation in detectable volume of gas as the gas detector Figure 2: Variation in detectable volume of gas as the gas detector
set point is changed from 10% LEL (top) to 50% LEL (bottom) set point is changed from 30% LEL (left) to 20% LEL (right)

Goals, objectives, expected results


The principal motivation behind using CFD to evaluate the performance of a gas detection system is the possibility of a direct assess-
ment of the gas detection system’s ability to detect gas clouds generated by a series of simulated realistic gas leaks. CFD allows
the effect of geometry, ventilation and leak characteristics to be taken into account.

Industry, previous work


• Miranga-Taquipe – Compressor Stations (2013 - Petrobras - Brazil)
• Terranova - FPSO (2012 – Suncor - Canada)
• Gullfaks platforms (A, B, C)– BOP-decks (2011 - Akersolutions/Statoil - Norway)
• Statfjord C platform (2009 – Statoil - Norway)
TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE GAS CLOUD
DETECTORS LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION
USING CFD

Modelling with simplified tools


Limitations:
• Low wind velocity (below 1m/s), from external wind conditions or within under-ventilated areas in complex geometry,
can not be accounted for
• Geometry effect not accounted for in the dispersion phase (ventilation, momentum of the release, turbulence generation,…)

Studies by the UK HSE (2001-2008) reported:


• Surveyed detection systems detected only 63% of major leaks and 31% of significant leaks

What would they mean for the project ?


Traditional detectors layout design guidelines are based on detector distribution density and leak probability:
• Result is frequently overdesigned and ineffective systems
• Excessive cost of installation and maintenance
• High incidence of false alarms higher operational costs
• Inadequate sense of security

Figure 1: Flammable gas concentrations illustrating the Figure 2: Flammable gas concentrations illustrating the complex
complex shape of the cloud formed in the event of an shape of the cloud formed in the event of an external jet release
impinging jet release on a process area. (FLACS Simulation) on a process area. (FLACS Simulations)

Modelling with FLACS/CFD


Advantages: modelling of releases impinging on a structure killing the momentum of the release, air entrainment and subsequent
dispersion are completely different compared to the case where the geometry effects are not present or neglected causing the
release to remain as a high momentum jet, which continues a significant distance in the direction of the release before being diluted
by the wind.

Scenarios considered: The key to the CFD study is determining what scenarios should be taken into account. If the scenarios
result only in large gas clouds, any detector layout will be acceptable and the study will not yield any useful information. Conversely,
if all the simulated gas clouds are too small, the study will yield an unrealistic number of detectors.
TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE GAS CLOUD
DETECTORS LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION
USING CFD

Conservatism? Reduced with CFD or a need for more?


• Simulation work has shown that CFD simulations would account
for complex gas clouds shapes and sizes and would be induce a
higher conservatism compared to simpler models.

Solution given from FLACS & Added values for the project
Figure 1: Flammable gas concentrations illustrating
• Assures that analyse becomes a tailor made test for the area in question the complex shape of the cloud formed in the event of
and a proper gas detection system test an impinging jet release on a process area.
(FLACS Simulation)
• Assess different detector configurations and strategies
• Combination of detector types: Point, LOS, Senscient
• Voting system: 1ooN, 2ooN…., separate or combined zones
• Low and high alarm: %LEL, ppm
• Detector response time

• Performance data readily available:


• Explosive cloud location, size and detection time
• Toxic gas & smoke cloud concentration, size and detection time
• Assessment of different layouts and detector types
(Point, LOS, Senscient) including 3D geometry effects.
Figure 2: Flammable gas cloud volume at detection.
• Substantial cost savings in installation, maintenance and operation
Negative volume indicates undetected clouds

Others related cases ?


• Detection of external flammable gas cloud formation at turbine and Living Quarter air intakes
• Toxic gas detection system – High H2S content in produced gas
• Frequent gas detections due to tank vents. Managing risk of major accidents (2010 - TOTAL - Paris, France) -

References, from existing clients

“ Detection analysis for an offshore facility demonstrated that changing the detection criteria
from 1*60%LEL to 2*20%LEL before shutting down the process had no effect in performance
safety. Resulted in estimated yearly savings of up to 8 million US dollars
”
“ A study using traditional prescriptive methodology recommended installing over 50 detectors
in an onshore gas compression plant. A study performed by Gexcon demonstrated that installing

”
18 detectors would meet all the required specifications
FLACS is a Gexcon brand. FLACS software enquiries
Gexcon is owned by the research institute CMR, with the University of Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Bergen as a majority owner. Our Head Office is based in Norway and we Tel: +47 55 57 43 30
have subsidiaries in USA, UK, Italy, Middle East, India, Australia, China and
Indonesia. We also work together with partners in Korea, Japan, Russia,
Malaysia and Singapore.

www.gexcon.com

You might also like