Introduction_to_Consequence_Modelling_presentation_slides

SOFTWARE
Introduction to Consequence Modelling

Webinar February 2017
01 February 2017
Ungraded
1 DNV GL © 01 February 2017 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

Speakers
Kenny Shaba
Phast and Safeti Product Manager with extensive experience in
Technical Safety projects (especially QRA) for both onshore
and offshore assets
Mark Hunter
Chartered Engineer in DNV GL’s Advisory business
11 years’ experience of safety related studies in the oil & gas
sector
Ungraded
2 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

Agenda
 Why consequence modelling? E.g. societal and regulatory drivers

– What is consequence modelling etc?
 Key hazards types to consider (fires, explosions and toxic hazards) and how to evaluate their impact potential
 Operational and practical applications of consequence modelling
 Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence modelling
 Q&A
Ungraded

Why Consequence Modelling?
Ungraded

The Oil and Gas/Chemical/Process Industries
Ungraded

Ungraded

Ungraded

Reference: Geoff Chamberlain and Bassam Burgan (2016) The Explosion at the Caribbean Petroleum Corporation (CAPECO) storage
facility at Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Proceedings of FABIG TM 86 “Lessons Learnt from Recent Accidents”.
Ungraded

Controlling the hazards is key…
 Robust and detailed evaluation of process hazards is key to developing an effective management
strategy. Why?
Control of Risks
 To control risks you have to manage processes to reduce them
Management
 To be able to manage risks you have to understand them.
 To be able to understand risks you have to analyse the risks. Understanding
 If you don’t do the analysis you might not fully understand the issues.
Analysis
 If you don’t fully understand, you might not be able to target your effort to reduce risks cost
effectively and it will be harder to justify your decisions.
Ungraded

IMPACTS and DRIVERS
IMPACTS DRIVERS
Ungraded

THE SAFETY PARADOX
 Most successful companies – good at managing risk

+ exploiting opportunity
 CM is a key element of risk management – “business

enabler”/ “adds value”
 “People react to what they see”
 Here comes the paradox – “Safety done well is

not visible”/”Safety done badly is highly
visible”
 Safety is the status quo – This is what is expected
Ungraded

THE COST OF GETTING IT WRONG
“If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident” – Trevor Kletz
LITIGATION ASSET DAMAGE

BUSINESS DISRUPTION
LOST REVENUE
SHARE PRICE ECONOMIC COSTS
$1860
FINES
INSURANCE PAYOUTS
MILLION
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROPERTY LOSS
REMEDIATION COMPANY REPUTATION
Reference: Marsh (2016). “The 100 Largest Losses 1974-2015 Large property damage losses in the hydrocarbon industry” 24th
Edition. Available Online.
Ungraded

Key hazards types to consider (fires, explosions
and toxic hazards) and how to evaluate their
impact potential
Ungraded

Key hazards types to consider
 Flammable (Natural Gas etc.)

– Fires
– Jet, Pool, Flash, Fireball, BLEVE
– Explosions
– Confined VCE, Unconfined CVE
 Toxic (e.g. H2S, Ammonia)
 Cryogenic (e.g. LNG)
 Asphyxiation (Inert Gas e.g. CO2 and N2)
 Smoke
Ungraded

Consequence Modelling - Stages
 Stage 1: Physical Effects Modelling

– Key goal – understanding the physical
characteristics/make up of hazard in the
environment
 Stage 2: Impact modelling

– Key goal – translation of hazard ranges
to Tangible impacts: life, property,
environment
– Less tangible impacts
Ungraded

Evaluating Impact Potential
 Various methods exist
 Simple to Complex
 «Hand calculations» to «Look up tables» to «Excel»

to «Software applications»
 Key decision factors – validated models and

methodology, reflects latest science, transparent,
high quality trusted platform, widely accessible, user
friendly, long shelf life…
 Recommend a fully integrated package (effects

modelling and impact analysis) with detailed
modelling logic e.g Phast
Ungraded

Factors to consider for consequence modelling
 Scenario/Case information
 Environmental conditions
 Choice of scientific tool/model
Ungraded

Operational and practical applications of
consequence modelling
Ungraded

A few popular applications…
 As part of a (Quantitative Risk Analysis) QRA study

 Hazardous Area Classification
 Facility Siting
 Chimney Stack sizing
 Fugitive emissions
 Vent modelling
 Equipment Separation Distances
 Site Layout Optimization
 Flare height determination
 Emergency Response
 Etc.
Ungraded

Example - Flammable Gas
Unit-15
Unit-21
Unit-12
Unit-25
Unit-10
Control Room
Unit-30
Utilities
Warehouse
LFL
½ LFL
Ungraded

Example - Explosions – 100mbar
10-3 per year

10-4 per year
10-5 per year
10-6 per year
10-7 per year
Ungraded

Example - Risk - QRA
10-3 per year

10-4 per year
10-5 per year
10-6 per year
10-7 per year
Ungraded

Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence
modelling
Ungraded

Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence modelling
 Many challenges exist. Some key ones are as follows:
 Inadequate problem definition and understanding

 Analytical tools (Selection, Application, Analyst Expertise and Limits)
 Poorly defined background assumptions
 Lack of Quality Control/Assurance
 Results Interpretation
 Personnel Competency
 Silo’ed delivery. CM should be a team effort
 Reproducible (documentation problem)
Ungraded

Underlying Assumptions INFLUENCE Results
 Goes by various names:

– Assumptions Register
– Study Basis
– Calculation Basis
 Any result should always be considered in

tandem with the assumptions made
 A number of things are key:

– Sensitivity Analysis, Social consent,
Conservatism
 Finally – CM is always about numbers – need to

remember the context is largely about keeping
people safe
Ungraded

Background Assumptions: Approach to Modelling Two-phase releases
 Modelling single phase releases is

straightforward
 Two-phase is more involved
 Rationalising to a single phase can be

dangerous
 Need to model 2-phase as realistic as possible
 Phast has an excellent way of approaching

this…
Ungraded

Background Assumptions: Explosion modelling
 Science in this area has improved significantly in

recent years
 Congestion/confinement are needed for explosions

with appreciable overpressure
 Older models e.g. TNT do not account for

congested/confined area
 Nevertheless – still used. Possible reasons?

– Simple?
– Lack of awareness?
 Historical focus has been on the overpressure. Now

overpressure and pulse duration
Ungraded

Background Assumptions: Vulnerability Modelling
 All about converting hazard ranges into human/asset

impact
 Based on historical evidence, experience and

experimental science (some animal studies)
 Relatively straightforward for fires and explosions
 Toxics is based on animal data and extrapolated to

human beings – hence somewhat uncertain and thus
subject to change
 E.g. RIVM recently updated their probits for certain

chemicals. The UK HSE also update toxicity data for
use in risk assessments from time to time.
Ungraded

Background Assumptions: Mixtures
 Various boiling points
 Vapour phase will be richer in the more volatile

components; Liquid phase will be richer in the
heavier components
 Average compositions will not reflect the

characteristics of the real situation
– for e.g a pool fire from heavy hydrocarbons has
different characteristics from one with lighter
material (sootier flame, more smoke)
– Lighter gases will disperse differently
Ungraded

Top tips for conducting Consequence Modelling
 Clear problem definition
 Clearly outlined and agreed assumptions and study basis

upfront
 Selection of a robust consequence analysis tool
 Sensitivity Analysis to key assumptions is key – need to

understand the associated uncertainty/influence on the
results
 Robust documentation convering all aspects
 Do not work in isolation – CM is a team effort that needs

input from various disciplines
 Perform Quality Assurance checks

Ungraded

Summary and Conclusions
 We have explored Consequence Modelling from a

broad perspective…
 Identified some applications and challenges…
 And concluded with some top tips for conducting

consequence modelling
 Key conclusions:
– Consequence modelling is a key pillar of risk
management
– Done right it can help achieve many RM objectives
– Need to be aware of the pitfalls to leverage it
successfully
Ungraded

Useful References
 “Reducing Risks, Protecting People" Health and Safety Executive (2001).
 TNO Yellow Book – CPR14E Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects
 Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications (2nd Edition), Daniel A. Crowl and Joseph F. Louvar,
2002 Edition, Publishers : Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
 Lees – Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
 CCPS Publications (Various) E.g. Guidelines for consequence analysis of chemical releases (1999)
 Kletz, T. What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters (1998) Gulf (and others)
 Trade industry Publications: OGP, Oil and Gas UK, CIA, API etc.
Ungraded

Notes
For further information about today’s webinar or Phast, please

contact us:
Software.communications@dnvgl.com
For more information about Phast, please see:

https://www.dnvgl.com/phast
For future events, please see:

https://www.dnvgl.com/software-events
Ungraded

www.dnvgl.com
SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER
Ungraded

Introduction_to_Consequence_Modelling_presentation_slides

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction_to_Consequence_Modelling_presentation_slides

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOFTWARE

Introduction to Consequence Modelling

1 DNV GL © 01 February 2017 SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

2 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Why consequence modelling? E.g. societal and regulatory drivers

 Operational and practical applications of consequence modelling

 Challenges to robust and rigorous consequence modelling

3 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

4 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

5 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 To be able to understand risks you have to analyse the risks. Understanding

6 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

7 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Most successful companies – good at managing risk

 CM is a key element of risk management – “business

 “People react to what they see”

 Here comes the paradox – “Safety done well is

 Safety is the status quo – This is what is expected

8 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

LITIGATION ASSET DAMAGE

9 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

10 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Flammable (Natural Gas etc.)

 Toxic (e.g. H2S, Ammonia)

 Cryogenic (e.g. LNG)

 Asphyxiation (Inert Gas e.g. CO2 and N2)

11 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Stage 1: Physical Effects Modelling

 Stage 2: Impact modelling

12 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Various methods exist

 «Hand calculations» to «Look up tables» to «Excel»

 Key decision factors – validated models and

 Recommend a fully integrated package (effects

13 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Choice of scientific tool/model

14 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

15 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 As part of a (Quantitative Risk Analysis) QRA study

16 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

17 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

10-3 per year

18 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

10-3 per year

19 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

20 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Many challenges exist. Some key ones are as follows:

 Inadequate problem definition and understanding

21 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Goes by various names:

 Any result should always be considered in

 A number of things are key:

 Finally – CM is always about numbers – need to

22 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Modelling single phase releases is

 Two-phase is more involved

 Rationalising to a single phase can be

 Need to model 2-phase as realistic as possible

 Phast has an excellent way of approaching

23 DNV GL © 01 February 2017

 Science in this area has improved significantly in